Hutton v. Wade Marine Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hutton v. Wade Marine Corp.

69 A.D.2d 897, 415 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643

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

DecidedApril 30, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 897 (Hutton v. Wade Marine 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

Hutton v. Wade Marine Corp., 69 A.D.2d 897, 415 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to, inter alia, rescind certain contracts, defendant Bank of Smithtown appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 18, 1978, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with appellant that former subdivision 9 of section 302 of the Personal Property Law is inapplicable to the instant action. Plaintiff, however, has no need to resort to this provision, since the retail installment contract provides, in conformance with Federal Law (see 16 CFR 433.2), that the holder of the contract (appellant) is subject to all claims which the debtor (plaintiff) could assert against the seller (defendant Wade Marine Corp.). Appellant has not demonstrated in its motion papers that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action or that a defense exists [898]*898which is founded upon documentary evidence. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to, inter alia, rescind certain contracts, defendant Bank of Smithtown appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 18, 1978, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We agree with appellant that former subdivision 9 of section 302 of the Personal Property Law is inapplicable to the instant action. Plaintiff, however, has no need to resort to this provision, since the retail installment contract provides, in conformance with Federal Law (see 16 CFR 433.2), that the holder of the contract (appellant) is subject to all claims which the debtor (plaintiff) could assert against the seller (defendant Wade Marine Corp.). Appellant has not demonstrated in its motion papers that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action or that a defense exists [898]*898which is founded upon documentary evidence. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 897, 415 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutton-v-wade-marine-corp-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack