International Business Machines Corp. v. Universal Transcontinental Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

International Business Machines Corp. v. Universal Transcontinental Corp.

121 A.D.2d 510, 504 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58485

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 510 (International Business Machines Corp. v. Universal Transcontinental 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

International Business Machines Corp. v. Universal Transcontinental Corp., 121 A.D.2d 510, 504 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract involving the loss of the plaintiff’s property [511]*511while in the possession of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered August 26, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

There are several issues that preclude a summary determination. Although the plaintiff now asserts a claim based on conversion, it pleaded no such claim. The defendant alleges that it has a Statute of Limitations defense. Furthermore, there are claims of estoppel and doubts are raised as to the defendant’s status as a warehouseman under the Uniform Commercial Code despite the references in the contract to warehouse charges. Under all the circumstances, a trial is warranted. Lazer, J. P., Fiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 negligence and breach of contract involving the loss of the plaintiff’s property [511]*511while in the possession of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered August 26, 1985, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

There are several issues that preclude a summary determination. Although the plaintiff now asserts a claim based on conversion, it pleaded no such claim. The defendant alleges that it has a Statute of Limitations defense. Furthermore, there are claims of estoppel and doubts are raised as to the defendant’s status as a warehouseman under the Uniform Commercial Code despite the references in the contract to warehouse charges. Under all the circumstances, a trial is warranted. Lazer, J. P., Fiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 510, 504 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-business-machines-corp-v-universal-transcontinental-corp-nyappdiv-1986.