Manufacturing Specialties Co. v. Frank Friedman & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manufacturing Specialties Co. v. Frank Friedman & Sons, Inc.

29 A.D.2d 859, 288 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4371

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 859 (Manufacturing Specialties Co. v. Frank Friedman & Sons, 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

Manufacturing Specialties Co. v. Frank Friedman & Sons, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 859, 288 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 27, 1967, granting the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment, and dismissing the separate affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the defendant, numbered 1 through 7, and also dismissing the separate affirmative defenses, numbered 8 and 9, and directing that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $7,931.29 with interest, unanimously modified, on the law, [860]*860by reinstating the first 7 separate affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and striking the provision for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount set forth in said order and as so modified the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant. The major question presented on this appeal is whether the appointment by plaintiff of the defendant as a distributor for as long as the plaintiff may manufacture or distribute the product involved, falls within the Statute of Frauds. The operative facts indicate that the plaintiff was acting as general distributor through a license issued by the patent holder for the product being sold. While the precise question has not been passed upon by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Divisions of the Fourth and Second Departments have both held that such an agreement does not fall within the scope of the Statute of Frauds and, therefore is enforcible. (Lem v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp., 9 Mise 2d 32, affd. 5 A D 2d 1051 [4th Dept.]; Mar-Bond Beverage Corp. v. Dublin Distributors, 9 A D 2d 951 [2d Dept.].) We follow those decisions and conclude that the contract, as alleged by the defendant, is not rendered unenforcible by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered September 27, 1967, granting the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment, and dismissing the separate affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the defendant, numbered 1 through 7, and also dismissing the separate affirmative defenses, numbered 8 and 9, and directing that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $7,931.29 with interest, unanimously modified, on the law, [860]*860by reinstating the first 7 separate affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and striking the provision for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount set forth in said order and as so modified the order is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant. The major question presented on this appeal is whether the appointment by plaintiff of the defendant as a distributor for as long as the plaintiff may manufacture or distribute the product involved, falls within the Statute of Frauds. The operative facts indicate that the plaintiff was acting as general distributor through a license issued by the patent holder for the product being sold. While the precise question has not been passed upon by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Divisions of the Fourth and Second Departments have both held that such an agreement does not fall within the scope of the Statute of Frauds and, therefore is enforcible. (Lem v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp., 9 Mise 2d 32, affd. 5 A D 2d 1051 [4th Dept.]; Mar-Bond Beverage Corp. v. Dublin Distributors, 9 A D 2d 951 [2d Dept.].) We follow those decisions and conclude that the contract, as alleged by the defendant, is not rendered unenforcible by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 859, 288 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manufacturing-specialties-co-v-frank-friedman-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1968.