Marun Fashion & Sportswear, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marun Fashion & Sportswear, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co.

223 A.D.2d 492, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 753

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 30, 1996·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 27, 1995 which, after a nonjury trial, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff buyer to return to defendant seller the money it received from selling the goods it purchased from defendant, less plaintiff’s shipping costs, and directed plaintiff to return and defendant to accept return of the balance of the goods, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s finding of fact that there was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of the sale, reviewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, was a fair interpretation of the conflicting testimony and documentary evidence adduced at trial. The testimony of defendant’s "expert” was ambiguous and susceptible of an interpretation supportive of plaintiff’s position (see, Richstone v Q-Med, Inc., 186 AD2d 354).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments arid find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 27, 1995 which, after a nonjury trial, insofar as appealed from, directed plaintiff buyer to return to defendant seller the money it received from selling the goods it purchased from defendant, less plaintiff’s shipping costs, and directed plaintiff to return and defendant to accept return of the balance of the goods, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s finding of fact that there was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of the sale, reviewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, was a fair interpretation of the conflicting testimony and documentary evidence adduced at trial. The testimony of defendant’s "expert” was ambiguous and susceptible of an interpretation supportive of plaintiff’s position (see, Richstone v Q-Med, Inc., 186 AD2d 354).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments arid find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Marun Fashion & Sportswear, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 223 A.D.2d 492, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

223 A.D.2d 492 (Marun Fashion & Sportswear, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related