Deal v. Lilyan Bertell, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Deal v. Lilyan Bertell, Inc.

168 Misc. 254, 5 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1726

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 3, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 168 Misc. 254 (Deal v. Lilyan Bertell, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deal v. Lilyan Bertell, Inc., 168 Misc. 254, 5 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

No sound reason is advanced why the retailer defendant should not bring into the action as a party defendant its vendor from whom it purchased the dress which it sold to the female plaintiff under a warranty of fitness and which allegedly caused the injuries complained of. The cause of action of the husband of the purchaser of the dress is not based on negligence, and no privity of contract existed between him and the retailer defendant. It is apparent that the order of November 18, 1937, requires Pecci, Inc., to plead or move in respect to the claim of the defendant-appellant, not to plaintiff’s complaint.

Order dated December 17, 1937, reversed, with ten dollars costs, and order dated November 18, 1937, reinstated.

All concur. Present —• Hammer, Shientag and Noonan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

No sound reason is advanced why the retailer defendant should not bring into the action as a party defendant its vendor from whom it purchased the dress which it sold to the female plaintiff under a warranty of fitness and which allegedly caused the injuries complained of. The cause of action of the husband of the purchaser of the dress is not based on negligence, and no privity of contract existed between him and the retailer defendant. It is apparent that the order of November 18, 1937, requires Pecci, Inc., to plead or move in respect to the claim of the defendant-appellant, not to plaintiff’s complaint.

Order dated December 17, 1937, reversed, with ten dollars costs, and order dated November 18, 1937, reinstated.

All concur. Present —• Hammer, Shientag and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Misc. 254, 5 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deal-v-lilyan-bertell-inc-nyappterm-1938.