C. K. S., Inc. v. Helen Borgenicht Sportswear, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C. K. S., Inc. v. Helen Borgenicht Sportswear, Inc.

22 A.D.2d 650, 253 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3129

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 8, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 650 (C. K. S., Inc. v. Helen Borgenicht Sportswear, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. K. S., Inc. v. Helen Borgenicht Sportswear, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 650, 253 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs to the third-party defendant-respondent. No opinion. Order, entered January 7, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the third-party defendant-appellant-respondent, and the motion of third-party defendant-appellant-respondent to dismiss the third-party complaint granted, with $10 costs. The action against third-party defendant-appellant-respondent was commenced by service of a summons and complaint November 15, 1963. The third-party complaint alleges that the third-party defendant-appellant-respondent in 1956, sold cloth to third-party plaintiff which was not of a merchantable quality and unfit for its intended use. Third-party plaintiff attempts to spell out a cause of action for possible future indemnity and a cause of action for breach of warranty. The only cause of action which plaintiff may assert upon the factual situation here presented is one for ‘breach of warranty. As such the action is subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations and is clearly barred (GPLR 213, subd. 2; Liberty Mut. Ins. Go. v. Sbeila-Lynn, Ine., 185 Mise. 689, affd. 270 App. Div. 835; Schwartz v. Eeyden Ghem. Gorp., 12 N Y 2d 212, 215). In light of the foregoing disposition the appeal of the defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent-appellant is dismissed. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs to the third-party defendant-respondent. No opinion. Order, entered January 7, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the third-party defendant-appellant-respondent, and the motion of third-party defendant-appellant-respondent to dismiss the third-party complaint granted, with $10 costs. The action against third-party defendant-appellant-respondent was commenced by service of a summons and complaint November 15, 1963. The third-party complaint alleges that the third-party defendant-appellant-respondent in 1956, sold cloth to third-party plaintiff which was not of a merchantable quality and unfit for its intended use. Third-party plaintiff attempts to spell out a cause of action for possible future indemnity and a cause of action for breach of warranty. The only cause of action which plaintiff may assert upon the factual situation here presented is one for ‘breach of warranty. As such the action is subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations and is clearly barred (GPLR 213, subd. 2; Liberty Mut. Ins. Go. v. Sbeila-Lynn, Ine., 185 Mise. 689, affd. 270 App. Div. 835; Schwartz v. Eeyden Ghem. Gorp., 12 N Y 2d 212, 215). In light of the foregoing disposition the appeal of the defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent-appellant is dismissed. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 650, 253 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-k-s-inc-v-helen-borgenicht-sportswear-inc-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack