Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Edson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Edson

250 A.D.2d 657, 671 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5521

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 657 (Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Edson) 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

Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Edson, 250 A.D.2d 657, 671 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), as granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to UCC 2-725.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The parties’ conflicting allegations as to the content of their agreement raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the agreement was predominantly for the sale of goods (see, UCC 2-725; Franklin Nursing Home v Power Cool[658]*658ing, 227 AD2d 374), and accordingly whether the four-year Statute of Limitations applies. We note that no copy of the agreement was included in the record on appeal and the parties have not made clear whether the agreement was ever reduced to a writing. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), as granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to UCC 2-725.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The parties’ conflicting allegations as to the content of their agreement raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the agreement was predominantly for the sale of goods (see, UCC 2-725; Franklin Nursing Home v Power Cool[658]*658ing, 227 AD2d 374), and accordingly whether the four-year Statute of Limitations applies. We note that no copy of the agreement was included in the record on appeal and the parties have not made clear whether the agreement was ever reduced to a writing. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 657, 671 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-buildings-inc-v-edson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack