Calspan Corp. v. Fingermatrix, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calspan Corp. v. Fingermatrix, Inc.

104 A.D.2d 1016, 480 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 1016 (Calspan Corp. v. Fingermatrix, 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

Calspan Corp. v. Fingermatrix, Inc., 104 A.D.2d 1016, 480 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, [1017]*1017defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J., on decision after trial; Ingrassia, J., on judgment), dated January 17, 1983, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $508,336.40 and which dismissed its counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at this extended trial supports the conclusion of the trial court, as trier of the facts, that defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that in purchasing plaintiff’s business it justifiably relied upon oral misrepresentations made by plaintiff as to the capabilities of the equipment being transferred (Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442). Defendant was aware from early on in the negotiations that certain of the equipment was not performing up to its represented capacity, yet it failed to make adequate investigations or secure guarantees before closing the sale of the business to insure that the equipment being sold was sufficient to meet its needs. These facts and circumstances support the trial court’s finding that it was unreasonable for defendant to rely upon the representations (Edmar Creations v Instrument Systems Corp., 74 AD2d 632). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, [1017]*1017defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J., on decision after trial; Ingrassia, J., on judgment), dated January 17, 1983, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $508,336.40 and which dismissed its counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at this extended trial supports the conclusion of the trial court, as trier of the facts, that defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that in purchasing plaintiff’s business it justifiably relied upon oral misrepresentations made by plaintiff as to the capabilities of the equipment being transferred (Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442). Defendant was aware from early on in the negotiations that certain of the equipment was not performing up to its represented capacity, yet it failed to make adequate investigations or secure guarantees before closing the sale of the business to insure that the equipment being sold was sufficient to meet its needs. These facts and circumstances support the trial court’s finding that it was unreasonable for defendant to rely upon the representations (Edmar Creations v Instrument Systems Corp., 74 AD2d 632). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 1016, 480 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calspan-corp-v-fingermatrix-inc-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack