Orbis Co. v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orbis Co. v. Rivera

140 A.D.2d 679, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 774, 529 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6103

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

DecidedMay 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 679 (Orbis Co. v. Rivera) 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

Orbis Co. v. Rivera, 140 A.D.2d 679, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 774, 529 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff for reasons stated by Justice Marbach in his decisions and orders of June 18, 1987, and May 7, 1987. We additionally note that the defendant Spiegel’s disclaimer of any business affiliation with the partnership doing business under the name "Chaz Travel” is belied by a credit card receipt submitted by Spiegel as proof that he was in Seoul, Korea, on the date the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was served and on [680]*680the return date of the parties’ respective motions. The credit card receipt records the cardholders as the defendant Spiegel and "Chaz Travel”. Moreover, the fact the goods were allegedly nonconforming is not a meritorious defense. When the goods at issue are received and accepted by the buyer, as here, the seller is entitled to recover the contract price for such goods, even if the goods are defective (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-607 [1]; Foley Mach. Co. v Amaco Constr. Corp., 126 AD2d 603; Avis Rent A Car Sys. v McNamara Buick Pontiac, 90 AD2d 783; Sunny Side Up v Agway, Inc., 40 AD2d 899, 900). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff for reasons stated by Justice Marbach in his decisions and orders of June 18, 1987, and May 7, 1987. We additionally note that the defendant Spiegel’s disclaimer of any business affiliation with the partnership doing business under the name "Chaz Travel” is belied by a credit card receipt submitted by Spiegel as proof that he was in Seoul, Korea, on the date the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was served and on [680]*680the return date of the parties’ respective motions. The credit card receipt records the cardholders as the defendant Spiegel and "Chaz Travel”. Moreover, the fact the goods were allegedly nonconforming is not a meritorious defense. When the goods at issue are received and accepted by the buyer, as here, the seller is entitled to recover the contract price for such goods, even if the goods are defective (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-607 [1]; Foley Mach. Co. v Amaco Constr. Corp., 126 AD2d 603; Avis Rent A Car Sys. v McNamara Buick Pontiac, 90 AD2d 783; Sunny Side Up v Agway, Inc., 40 AD2d 899, 900). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 679, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 774, 529 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orbis-co-v-rivera-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack