Estate of Arena v. Abbott & Cobb, Inc.

158 A.D.2d 926, 551 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1431
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1990·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Defendant correctly contends on appeal that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether the limitation of damages clause was unconscionable because unconscionability is a question of law to be decided by the court (see, Sablosky v Gordon Co., 73 NY2d 133, 138). Although that error was harmless because the court made its own finding [927]*927that the clause was unconscionable, we find that the court erred in so finding, and thus we find that reversal is required. Plaintiff, a commercial farmer, failed to overcome the presumption of conscionability (see, Cayuga Harvester v Allis-Chalmers Corp., 95 AD2d 5, 20-21). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J. — breach of warranty.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Estate of Arena v. Abbott & Cobb, Inc., 158 A.D.2d 926, 551 N.Y.S.2d 715, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

158 A.D.2d 926 (Estate of Arena v. Abbott & Cobb, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Everkrisp Vegetables Inc. v. Tobiason Potato Co.
870 F. Supp. 2d 745 (D. North Dakota, 2012)
Reznor v. J. Artist Management, Inc.
365 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc.
621 N.E.2d 1078 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1993)