State Storm Window Co. v. Herder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Storm Window Co. v. Herder

279 A.D. 976, 111 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 976 (State Storm Window Co. v. Herder) 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

State Storm Window Co. v. Herder, 279 A.D. 976, 111 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: In our opinion the contract is so indefinite as to be unenforeible. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents in part and votes for reversal of the order insofar as it grants the defendants’ motion, in the following memorandum : There is an implied warranty that the windows, screens, and vents to be constructed under the terms of the contract were to be constructed in good and workmanlike manner and suitable for the purpose for which they were constructed. The answer raises the question of fact as to whether or not they were so constructed. (Bowser & Co. v. McCormack, 230 App. Div. 303, 305; Matter of Casualty Co. [Bliss Co. Claim], 250 N. Y. 410, 416.) The answer also contains allegations of fraud which are susceptible of oral proof. I do not find the contract indefinite in any material respect. (Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ answer and for summary judgment, and granting defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Memorandum: In our opinion the contract is so indefinite as to be unenforeible. All concur, except Piper, J., who dissents in part and votes for reversal of the order insofar as it grants the defendants’ motion, in the following memorandum : There is an implied warranty that the windows, screens, and vents to be constructed under the terms of the contract were to be constructed in good and workmanlike manner and suitable for the purpose for which they were constructed. The answer raises the question of fact as to whether or not they were so constructed. (Bowser & Co. v. McCormack, 230 App. Div. 303, 305; Matter of Casualty Co. [Bliss Co. Claim], 250 N. Y. 410, 416.) The answer also contains allegations of fraud which are susceptible of oral proof. I do not find the contract indefinite in any material respect. (Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ answer and for summary judgment, and granting defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 976, 111 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-storm-window-co-v-herder-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack