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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 1952·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

279 A.D. 976 (State Storm Window Co. v. Herder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related