Stainless Metals, Inc. v. F. H. McGraw & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stainless Metals, Inc. v. F. H. McGraw & Co.

283 A.D. 1119

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

DecidedJune 23, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1119 (Stainless Metals, Inc. v. F. H. McGraw & 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

Stainless Metals, Inc. v. F. H. McGraw & Co., 283 A.D. 1119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for the price of goods sold and delivered, a 2,000 gallon tank and accessories, plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, pursuant to rule 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, and the second cause of action severed. Timely delivery and the price of the tank are admitted. Failure to resort to arbitration is not a defense. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1451; American Reserve Ins. Co. v. China Ins. Co., 297 H. Y. 322, 326.) There is no factual allegation in the answer or in opposition to the motion which serves to create any triable issue that any breach of contract was related to manufacture and delivery of the tank or that any damage by reason of breach was sustained. Wenzel, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ., concur. Adel, Acting P. J., and Beldock, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

In an action for the price of goods sold and delivered, a 2,000 gallon tank and accessories, plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, pursuant to rule 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs, and the second cause of action severed. Timely delivery and the price of the tank are admitted. Failure to resort to arbitration is not a defense. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1451; American Reserve Ins. Co. v. China Ins. Co., 297 H. Y. 322, 326.) There is no factual allegation in the answer or in opposition to the motion which serves to create any triable issue that any breach of contract was related to manufacture and delivery of the tank or that any damage by reason of breach was sustained. Wenzel, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ., concur. Adel, Acting P. J., and Beldock, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stainless-metals-inc-v-f-h-mcgraw-co-nyappdiv-1954.