Geographia Map Co. v. American News Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geographia Map Co. v. American News Co.

17 A.D.2d 783, 232 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7789

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 783 (Geographia Map Co. v. American News Co.) 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

Geographia Map Co. v. American News Co., 17 A.D.2d 783, 232 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on December 13, 1961 granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, and the judgment entered thereon on December 27,1961, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied. In the first cause of action, plaintiffs, who are publishers of various periodicals, seek the recovery of $104,889 as damages for failure of defendant, a wholesale distributor of the magazines, to return or account for undisposed copies. The affidavits submitted by both sides are somewhat vague and obscure. However, plaintiffs rely substantially upon a claimed arrangement with defendant whereby all returns were to be forwarded to two named companies which were to make an independent count of the returns. The written contracts between the parties contain no provisions regarding such an arrangement. Defendant asserts that there was an entirely different method for taking care of the returns and denies the existence of any arrangement such as the plaintiffs aver. Apart from the triable issue posed by the conflicting affidavits as to the alleged arrangement, there are issues, among others, as to the accuracy of plaintiffs’ analysis of the claimed shortage, the alleged failure of plaintiffs to comply with the conditions precedent in the written contracts, and the practice of the parties [784]*784in dealing with returns. Under the circumstances, the existence of the triable issues precluded the granting of summary judgment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on December 13, 1961 granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, and the judgment entered thereon on December 27,1961, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied. In the first cause of action, plaintiffs, who are publishers of various periodicals, seek the recovery of $104,889 as damages for failure of defendant, a wholesale distributor of the magazines, to return or account for undisposed copies. The affidavits submitted by both sides are somewhat vague and obscure. However, plaintiffs rely substantially upon a claimed arrangement with defendant whereby all returns were to be forwarded to two named companies which were to make an independent count of the returns. The written contracts between the parties contain no provisions regarding such an arrangement. Defendant asserts that there was an entirely different method for taking care of the returns and denies the existence of any arrangement such as the plaintiffs aver. Apart from the triable issue posed by the conflicting affidavits as to the alleged arrangement, there are issues, among others, as to the accuracy of plaintiffs’ analysis of the claimed shortage, the alleged failure of plaintiffs to comply with the conditions precedent in the written contracts, and the practice of the parties [784]*784in dealing with returns. Under the circumstances, the existence of the triable issues precluded the granting of summary judgment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 783, 232 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geographia-map-co-v-american-news-co-nyappdiv-1962.