International Dictating & Telephone Equipment, Inc. v. Randy International, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

International Dictating & Telephone Equipment, Inc. v. Randy International, Ltd.

225 A.D.2d 362, 638 N.Y.2d 650, 638 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2200

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 362 (International Dictating & Telephone Equipment, Inc. v. Randy International, Ltd.) 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 Dictating & Telephone Equipment, Inc. v. Randy International, Ltd., 225 A.D.2d 362, 638 N.Y.2d 650, 638 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court correctly found that the documents comprising the parties’ contract are unambiguous in requiring that defendant not release the goods to the buyer without payment (see, e.g., Brooklyn Overall Export Co. v Amerford Intl. Corp., 83 AD2d 598, affd 54 NY2d 907). It is irrelevant whether, in this particular transaction, defendant acted as a common carrier or merely as a freight forwarder, since loss of or damage to goods is not involved. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

The IAS Court correctly found that the documents comprising the parties’ contract are unambiguous in requiring that defendant not release the goods to the buyer without payment (see, e.g., Brooklyn Overall Export Co. v Amerford Intl. Corp., 83 AD2d 598, affd 54 NY2d 907). It is irrelevant whether, in this particular transaction, defendant acted as a common carrier or merely as a freight forwarder, since loss of or damage to goods is not involved. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 362, 638 N.Y.2d 650, 638 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-dictating-telephone-equipment-inc-v-randy-international-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack