Squazzo v. Timken Silent Automatic Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Squazzo v. Timken Silent Automatic Co.

249 A.D. 757, 291 N.Y.S. 945, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 757 (Squazzo v. Timken Silent Automatic Co.) 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

Squazzo v. Timken Silent Automatic Co., 249 A.D. 757, 291 N.Y.S. 945, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the defendant’s repossession of property sold to plaintiff under a conditional sale contract, the buyer had paid more than fifty per cent of the purchase price when the property was retaken. There was no resale and it is admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. The question is whether the acts of the defendant were those of retaking under the provisions of section 76 of the Uniform Conditional Sales Act and plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under section 80-e; or whether the defendant rescinded the contract of sale and became liable for damages under section 80-f. The trial court found that there was no rescission but that the acts of the defendant constituted a retaking of the peoperty. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for the defendant’s repossession of property sold to plaintiff under a conditional sale contract, the buyer had paid more than fifty per cent of the purchase price when the property was retaken. There was no resale and it is admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. The question is whether the acts of the defendant were those of retaking under the provisions of section 76 of the Uniform Conditional Sales Act and plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under section 80-e; or whether the defendant rescinded the contract of sale and became liable for damages under section 80-f. The trial court found that there was no rescission but that the acts of the defendant constituted a retaking of the peoperty. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 757, 291 N.Y.S. 945, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/squazzo-v-timken-silent-automatic-co-nyappdiv-1936.