Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Robco Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Robco Distributors, Inc.

205 A.D.2d 662, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432

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

DecidedJune 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 662 (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Robco Distributors, 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

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Robco Distributors, Inc., 205 A.D.2d 662, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a sales contract and to enforce a personal guarantee, the defendant John J. Gallagher, Jr., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated January 27, 1993, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, since the record presents material [663]*663issues of fact as to the mailing and sufficiency of the demand for payment which the respondent claims to have sent to him (see, Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a sales contract and to enforce a personal guarantee, the defendant John J. Gallagher, Jr., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated January 27, 1993, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, since the record presents material [663]*663issues of fact as to the mailing and sufficiency of the demand for payment which the respondent claims to have sent to him (see, Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 662, 614 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-motor-credit-co-v-robco-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack