Octagon Corp. v. Seibel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Octagon Corp. v. Seibel

181 A.D.2d 1054, 582 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1054 (Octagon Corp. v. Seibel) 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

Octagon Corp. v. Seibel, 181 A.D.2d 1054, 582 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Defendant purchased an IBM personal computer from his employer, Production Efficiency Company (PEC). PEC subsequently entered into an agreement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff purchased its fixed assets and PEC retained the interest in its accounts receivable. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover the amount allegedly due and owing by defendant on the computer equipment.

After the sale of the computer to defendant, PEC had, at most, a security interest in the equipment and an enforceable right to receive the payments agreed to by defendant. Thus, the computer equipment was not included in the purchase agreement between plaintiff and PEC. The addendum to the purchase agreement that purported to assign to plaintiff the right to receive payment from defendant was signed only by plaintiff and does not serve to modify the original integrated purchase agreement entered into between plaintiff and PEC (see, General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Defendant purchased an IBM personal computer from his employer, Production Efficiency Company (PEC). PEC subsequently entered into an agreement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff purchased its fixed assets and PEC retained the interest in its accounts receivable. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover the amount allegedly due and owing by defendant on the computer equipment.

After the sale of the computer to defendant, PEC had, at most, a security interest in the equipment and an enforceable right to receive the payments agreed to by defendant. Thus, the computer equipment was not included in the purchase agreement between plaintiff and PEC. The addendum to the purchase agreement that purported to assign to plaintiff the right to receive payment from defendant was signed only by plaintiff and does not serve to modify the original integrated purchase agreement entered into between plaintiff and PEC (see, General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1054, 582 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/octagon-corp-v-seibel-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack