Rand Products Co. v. Mintz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rand Products Co. v. Mintz

72 Misc. 2d 621, 340 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2281

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 23, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 72 Misc. 2d 621 (Rand Products Co. v. Mintz) 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

Rand Products Co. v. Mintz, 72 Misc. 2d 621, 340 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the conclusion directing judgment in favor of the plaintiff, but- solely on the ground that since the plaintiff was entitled to possession, it was entitled to compensation for the use of its land (see, i.e., Oboler v. Miller, 146 Misc. 509; Talley v. James Everard’s Breweries, 116 N. Y. S. 657; Christatos v. United Cigar Stores of Amer., 144 Misc. 322). The obligation does not rest on trespass or on contract, express or implied in fact, but is one “imposed by the law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties ” (1 Williston, Contracts [3d ed.], § 3A, p. 13; see, also, 9 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 4; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N. Y. 400, 408). The indorsement on the summons sufficed to give the defendants adequate notice of the plaintiff’s claim. In affirming, we do not adopt the theory, enunciated below, that the defendants.had committed trespass.

The judgment entered May 4, 1972, was superseded by the resettled judgment. The separate appeal from the former should, therefore, be dismissed.

The resettled judgment should be affirmed, with $25 costs; appeal from the judgment entered May 4, 1972. should be dismissed without costs.

Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Quinn and Markowitz. JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur in the conclusion directing judgment in favor of the plaintiff, but- solely on the ground that since the plaintiff was entitled to possession, it was entitled to compensation for the use of its land (see, i.e., Oboler v. Miller, 146 Misc. 509; Talley v. James Everard’s Breweries, 116 N. Y. S. 657; Christatos v. United Cigar Stores of Amer., 144 Misc. 322). The obligation does not rest on trespass or on contract, express or implied in fact, but is one “imposed by the law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties ” (1 Williston, Contracts [3d ed.], § 3A, p. 13; see, also, 9 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 4; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N. Y. 400, 408). The indorsement on the summons sufficed to give the defendants adequate notice of the plaintiff’s claim. In affirming, we do not adopt the theory, enunciated below, that the defendants.had committed trespass.

The judgment entered May 4, 1972, was superseded by the resettled judgment. The separate appeal from the former should, therefore, be dismissed.

The resettled judgment should be affirmed, with $25 costs; appeal from the judgment entered May 4, 1972. should be dismissed without costs.

Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Quinn and Markowitz. JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Misc. 2d 621, 340 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rand-products-co-v-mintz-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack