Meitchik v. Philips

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Meitchik v. Philips

13 Misc. 2d 439, 180 N.Y.S.2d 722

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 439 (Meitchik v. Philips) 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

Meitchik v. Philips, 13 Misc. 2d 439, 180 N.Y.S.2d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to the defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below. The terms of the written agreement were clear and unambiguous. The purported oral modification thereof was without consideration (Melnick v. Kukla, 228 App. Div. 321) and was otherwise unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1; Martocci v. Greater New York Brewery, 301 N. Y. 57). The alleged custom of granting rebates may not be invoked to vary or contradict the explicit provisions of the contract involved herein (Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N. Y. 22).

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with $30 costs to the defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below. The terms of the written agreement were clear and unambiguous. The purported oral modification thereof was without consideration (Melnick v. Kukla, 228 App. Div. 321) and was otherwise unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1; Martocci v. Greater New York Brewery, 301 N. Y. 57). The alleged custom of granting rebates may not be invoked to vary or contradict the explicit provisions of the contract involved herein (Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N. Y. 22).

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 439, 180 N.Y.S.2d 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meitchik-v-philips-nyappterm-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack