Evanoski v. All Around Travel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Evanoski v. All Around Travel

178 Misc. 2d 693, 682 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 604

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 Misc. 2d 693 (Evanoski v. All Around Travel) 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

Evanoski v. All Around Travel, 178 Misc. 2d 693, 682 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs, and action dismissed.

[694]*694In our opinion substantial justice was not done between the parties in accordance with the principles and rules of substantive law (see, UJCA 1807). The judgment in favor of plaintiff was apparently based upon the court’s determination that performance of the tour conditions and passenger participant agreement by plaintiff and her husband was rendered impossible due to plaintiff’s sudden illness on the scheduled date of departure. The tour protection clause of the agreement, however, expressly conditioned a full refund upon “cancellation both verbally and in writing up to 72 hours before scheduled departure time.” Moreover, said clause also clearly provided that there were “[mjany other options of trip cancellation, health and accident insurance” available through the travel agent. It cannot be said that the event of cancellation for health reasons was one that could not have been foreseen or guarded against so as to invoke the doctrine of impossibility of performance (see generally, Kel Kim Corp. v Central Mkts., 70 NY2d 900, 902). Plaintiff could have obtained such insurance but chose not to. Under these circumstances, plaintiff, having failed to provide timely cancellation notice pursuant to the agreement, is foreclosed from recovery of any refunds.

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Palella, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs, and action dismissed.

[694]*694In our opinion substantial justice was not done between the parties in accordance with the principles and rules of substantive law (see, UJCA 1807). The judgment in favor of plaintiff was apparently based upon the court’s determination that performance of the tour conditions and passenger participant agreement by plaintiff and her husband was rendered impossible due to plaintiff’s sudden illness on the scheduled date of departure. The tour protection clause of the agreement, however, expressly conditioned a full refund upon “cancellation both verbally and in writing up to 72 hours before scheduled departure time.” Moreover, said clause also clearly provided that there were “[mjany other options of trip cancellation, health and accident insurance” available through the travel agent. It cannot be said that the event of cancellation for health reasons was one that could not have been foreseen or guarded against so as to invoke the doctrine of impossibility of performance (see generally, Kel Kim Corp. v Central Mkts., 70 NY2d 900, 902). Plaintiff could have obtained such insurance but chose not to. Under these circumstances, plaintiff, having failed to provide timely cancellation notice pursuant to the agreement, is foreclosed from recovery of any refunds.

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Palella, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Misc. 2d 693, 682 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evanoski-v-all-around-travel-nyappterm-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack