Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc.

95 Misc. 2d 834, 414 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 Misc. 2d 834 (Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc., 95 Misc. 2d 834, 414 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

[835]*835OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of the court below (90 Misc 2d 259) affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff established his cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant failed to establish its defense of accord and satisfaction (see Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 AD2d 565). Moreover, in view of the undisputed facts contained in the record, it cannot be said that the court’s opinion was affected by its consultations with a Federal agency. We are, thus, of the opinion that substantial justice has been done between the parties (CCA, § 1807).

Concur: Pino, P. J., and Weinstein, J.; Rinaldi, J., taking no part.

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

[835]*835OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of the court below (90 Misc 2d 259) affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff established his cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant failed to establish its defense of accord and satisfaction (see Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 AD2d 565). Moreover, in view of the undisputed facts contained in the record, it cannot be said that the court’s opinion was affected by its consultations with a Federal agency. We are, thus, of the opinion that substantial justice has been done between the parties (CCA, § 1807).

Concur: Pino, P. J., and Weinstein, J.; Rinaldi, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Misc. 2d 834, 414 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mais-v-futuristic-foods-inc-nyappterm-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack