Nagel Dairy, Inc. v. Du Mond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagel Dairy, Inc. v. Du Mond

272 A.D.2d 1096

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1096 (Nagel Dairy, Inc. v. Du Mond) 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

Nagel Dairy, Inc. v. Du Mond, 272 A.D.2d 1096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County Special Term which annulled respondent’s [appellant’s] determination denying petitioner’s [respondent’s] application for a milk dealer’s license for the year ending March 31, 1947, unless .petitioner paid a $500 pivil penalty for an alleged violation of section 50 of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Petitioner sold an homogenized mixture of skim milk and butter which had the appearance of cream, but practiced no deception in the sale thereof. The purchaser knew that it was not receiving cream. The court below held that under the circumstances the section quoted was not violated by petitioner. Order affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Bussell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County Special Term which annulled respondent’s [appellant’s] determination denying petitioner’s [respondent’s] application for a milk dealer’s license for the year ending March 31, 1947, unless .petitioner paid a $500 pivil penalty for an alleged violation of section 50 of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Petitioner sold an homogenized mixture of skim milk and butter which had the appearance of cream, but practiced no deception in the sale thereof. The purchaser knew that it was not receiving cream. The court below held that under the circumstances the section quoted was not violated by petitioner. Order affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Bussell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagel-dairy-inc-v-du-mond-nyappdiv-1947.