Fareri v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fareri v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 566, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247

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

DecidedJune 4, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 566 (Fareri v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.) 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

Fareri v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 566, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an áetion by a vendee (1) for specific performance of contracts to sell two certain motor vehicles or (2) to recover the money paid to defendant for the vehicles, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 24, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the cause for recovery of the money. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Plaintiff claims defendant refused to deliver the vehicles or refund the money paid for them and defendant claims it was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen. In our opinion, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an áetion by a vendee (1) for specific performance of contracts to sell two certain motor vehicles or (2) to recover the money paid to defendant for the vehicles, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 24, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the cause for recovery of the money. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Plaintiff claims defendant refused to deliver the vehicles or refund the money paid for them and defendant claims it was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen. In our opinion, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 566, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fareri-v-mccormack-motor-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1973.