Russo v. Guardsman Lease Plan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Guardsman Lease Plan, Inc.

82 A.D.2d 801

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

DecidedJune 30, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 801 (Russo v. Guardsman Lease Plan, Inc.) 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

Russo v. Guardsman Lease Plan, Inc., 82 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to rescind a contract of sale, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 28, 1980, which was in favor of plaintiffs after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The merits of plaintiffs’ action for rescission of a contract of sale involving an automobile on the ground of fraud were not governed by the requirements of section 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-103). With respect to damages, it was not incumbent upon plaintiffs to establish actual pecuniary loss (see Dress Shirt Sales v Hotel Martinique Assoc., 12 NY2d 339; Gross v State Cooperage Export Crating & Shipping Co., 32 AD2d 540). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P.,. Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to rescind a contract of sale, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 28, 1980, which was in favor of plaintiffs after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The merits of plaintiffs’ action for rescission of a contract of sale involving an automobile on the ground of fraud were not governed by the requirements of section 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-103). With respect to damages, it was not incumbent upon plaintiffs to establish actual pecuniary loss (see Dress Shirt Sales v Hotel Martinique Assoc., 12 NY2d 339; Gross v State Cooperage Export Crating & Shipping Co., 32 AD2d 540). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P.,. Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-guardsman-lease-plan-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack