J. Manes Co. v. Greenwood Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. Manes Co. v. Greenwood Mills, Inc.

75 A.D.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10965

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

DecidedApril 24, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.2d 557 (J. Manes Co. v. Greenwood Mills, 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

J. Manes Co. v. Greenwood Mills, Inc., 75 A.D.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 1, 1979, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant-respondent-appellant Greenwood Mills, Inc. (Greenwood), a textile manufacturer, sold certain unfinished (greige) fabrics to Mill Fabrics Corporation (Mill), a textile converter, on a "bill and hold” basis, that is, they were stored at Greenwood’s premises subject to the order of Mill. The sales contract provided that Greenwood retain a security interest in the goods to the extent of Mill’s indebtedness to it. Mill never paid Greenwood for these goods, but sold them to plaintiff-appellant-respondent J. Manes Có., Inc. (Manes) which paid Mill in full for them. Subsequently Mill became insolvent and Greenwood refused to release the goods to Manes, asserting its security interest and sold the fabrics to a third party in satisfaction of Mill’s indebtedness. Manes brought this action which sounds in quasi contract for money had and received, since its cause of action for tortious [558]*558conversion was barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. Subsequently, Manes moved for summary judgment relying principally on Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v Deering Milliken (39 NY2d 632), and Greenwood cross-moved for the same relief. Special Term held, basically, that triable issues of fact exist, and we agree. The record indicates that there are questions concerning choice of law, unjust enrichment and whether the sale was made in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code and the custom and practice of the industry, which have not been resolved, which are disputed and which involve underlying triable issues of fact whose resolution is necessary before they may be determined. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 1, 1979, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant-respondent-appellant Greenwood Mills, Inc. (Greenwood), a textile manufacturer, sold certain unfinished (greige) fabrics to Mill Fabrics Corporation (Mill), a textile converter, on a "bill and hold” basis, that is, they were stored at Greenwood’s premises subject to the order of Mill. The sales contract provided that Greenwood retain a security interest in the goods to the extent of Mill’s indebtedness to it. Mill never paid Greenwood for these goods, but sold them to plaintiff-appellant-respondent J. Manes Có., Inc. (Manes) which paid Mill in full for them. Subsequently Mill became insolvent and Greenwood refused to release the goods to Manes, asserting its security interest and sold the fabrics to a third party in satisfaction of Mill’s indebtedness. Manes brought this action which sounds in quasi contract for money had and received, since its cause of action for tortious [558]*558conversion was barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. Subsequently, Manes moved for summary judgment relying principally on Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v Deering Milliken (39 NY2d 632), and Greenwood cross-moved for the same relief. Special Term held, basically, that triable issues of fact exist, and we agree. The record indicates that there are questions concerning choice of law, unjust enrichment and whether the sale was made in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code and the custom and practice of the industry, which have not been resolved, which are disputed and which involve underlying triable issues of fact whose resolution is necessary before they may be determined. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-manes-co-v-greenwood-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack