F. MacCormack Agency v. Sullivan Systems Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

F. MacCormack Agency v. Sullivan Systems Corp.

237 A.D.2d 406, 656 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2568

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 406 (F. MacCormack Agency v. Sullivan Systems Corp.) 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

F. MacCormack Agency v. Sullivan Systems Corp., 237 A.D.2d 406, 656 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 20, 1995, as, after á nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $70,125. The plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same judgment, as, in effect, dismissed its cause of action to recover damages for fraud and its cause of action under General Business Law § 349.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On June 23, 1988, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the defendant sold and licensed to the plaintiff certain computer hardware and software for use in the plaintiff’s business. The software licensing provision in the agreement provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff could seek a refund, for any reason, within 30 days after the delivery of the software products. On October 24, 1988, the defendant delivered the computer and several component parts. However, the evidence shows that the software was not delivered until December 7, 1988. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s exercise of the 30-day refund option on December 26, 1988, was timely (cf., Triangle Underwriters v Honeywell, Inc., 604 F2d 737; Dreier Co. v Unitronix Corp., 218 NJ Super 260, 527 A2d 875; Rochester Welding Supply Corp. v Burroughs Corp., 78 AD2d 983).

[407]*407The parties’ remaining contentions are academic or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 20, 1995, as, after á nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $70,125. The plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same judgment, as, in effect, dismissed its cause of action to recover damages for fraud and its cause of action under General Business Law § 349.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On June 23, 1988, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the defendant sold and licensed to the plaintiff certain computer hardware and software for use in the plaintiff’s business. The software licensing provision in the agreement provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff could seek a refund, for any reason, within 30 days after the delivery of the software products. On October 24, 1988, the defendant delivered the computer and several component parts. However, the evidence shows that the software was not delivered until December 7, 1988. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s exercise of the 30-day refund option on December 26, 1988, was timely (cf., Triangle Underwriters v Honeywell, Inc., 604 F2d 737; Dreier Co. v Unitronix Corp., 218 NJ Super 260, 527 A2d 875; Rochester Welding Supply Corp. v Burroughs Corp., 78 AD2d 983).

[407]*407The parties’ remaining contentions are academic or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 406, 656 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-maccormack-agency-v-sullivan-systems-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack