Ciaccio v. Currie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciaccio v. Currie

281 A.D. 892, 120 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3699

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 892 (Ciaccio v. Currie) 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

Ciaccio v. Currie, 281 A.D. 892, 120 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action described in the complaint as one to recover damages for breach of a written contract to deliver personal property of the value of $2,000, it appears that recovery is actually sought on the theory that there was a breach of warranty of condition and operability of some of the items of personal property. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County, entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant. The appeal is on the ground that the Trial Judge refused appellants’ request to direct the stenographer to report the opening and closing statements of counsel, contrary to section 295 of the Judiciary Law, and on the ground that there was error in refusing to admit evidence that the $20,000 consideration expressed in the contract was divisible into $18,000 for real property and $2,000 for personal property. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present- — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ.

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

In an action described in the complaint as one to recover damages for breach of a written contract to deliver personal property of the value of $2,000, it appears that recovery is actually sought on the theory that there was a breach of warranty of condition and operability of some of the items of personal property. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County, entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant. The appeal is on the ground that the Trial Judge refused appellants’ request to direct the stenographer to report the opening and closing statements of counsel, contrary to section 295 of the Judiciary Law, and on the ground that there was error in refusing to admit evidence that the $20,000 consideration expressed in the contract was divisible into $18,000 for real property and $2,000 for personal property. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present- — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 892, 120 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciaccio-v-currie-nyappdiv-1953.