Rypins v. Rowan

New York Supreme Court

Rypins v. Rowan

30 Misc. 2d 568, 219 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2444

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 Misc. 2d 568 (Rypins v. Rowan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rypins v. Rowan, 30 Misc. 2d 568, 219 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2444 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion to dismiss as insufficient (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4) the fourth cause of action of the complaint is granted.

While the rule with respect to privity of contract has been relaxed, the relaxation thus far is only with respect to food and household goods, where according to Greenberg v. Lorenz (9 N Y 2d 195, 200) “ the presumption should be that the purchase was made for all the members of the household.”

Here, the article involved is a combination storm door which was affixed to the home by Harold F. Rowan. Not only does such article not come within the category specified in the Greenberg case (supra), but it also does not appear in the complaint that the agent, Harold F. Rowan, who allegedly purchased the article, purchased it from Excelum Aluminum Products Co., the movant herein.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion to dismiss as insufficient (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4) the fourth cause of action of the complaint is granted.

While the rule with respect to privity of contract has been relaxed, the relaxation thus far is only with respect to food and household goods, where according to Greenberg v. Lorenz (9 N Y 2d 195, 200) “ the presumption should be that the purchase was made for all the members of the household.”

Here, the article involved is a combination storm door which was affixed to the home by Harold F. Rowan. Not only does such article not come within the category specified in the Greenberg case (supra), but it also does not appear in the complaint that the agent, Harold F. Rowan, who allegedly purchased the article, purchased it from Excelum Aluminum Products Co., the movant herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 2d 568, 219 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rypins-v-rowan-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack