Kaufman v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 741 (Kaufman v. McCormack Motor Sales, 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

Kaufman v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc., 41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for money had and received, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 12, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The sum of $2,200 was paid by plaintiff to defendant for the purchase of an automobile. Defendant refused to deliver the vehicle or return the money, claiming that it was the victim of fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen. In our opinion, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for money had and received, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 12, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The sum of $2,200 was paid by plaintiff to defendant for the purchase of an automobile. Defendant refused to deliver the vehicle or return the money, claiming that it was the victim of fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen. In our opinion, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 741, 341 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-mccormack-motor-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1973.