Simchick v. I. M. Young & Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Simchick v. I. M. Young & Co.

346 N.E.2d 818, 38 N.Y.2d 921, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 459, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2363

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 818 (Simchick v. I. M. Young & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simchick v. I. M. Young & Co., 346 N.E.2d 818, 38 N.Y.2d 921, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 459, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2363 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We affirm on the memorandum at the Ap[923]*923pellate Division (47 AD2d 549). In so doing, we note that the quarantine was imposed upon plaintiffs crop only after cauliflower from his field was tested and found to have an impermissible residue of Endrin. We would also note that the theory of liability was not "strict liability in tort” as stated below (47 AD2d, at p 551). Rather, liability was predicated solely upon the seller’s express and implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. (Cf. Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 NY2d 395, 402, 404, n 3.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

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

Memorandum. We affirm on the memorandum at the Ap[923]*923pellate Division (47 AD2d 549). In so doing, we note that the quarantine was imposed upon plaintiffs crop only after cauliflower from his field was tested and found to have an impermissible residue of Endrin. We would also note that the theory of liability was not "strict liability in tort” as stated below (47 AD2d, at p 551). Rather, liability was predicated solely upon the seller’s express and implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. (Cf. Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 NY2d 395, 402, 404, n 3.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 N.E.2d 818, 38 N.Y.2d 921, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 459, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simchick-v-i-m-young-co-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack