Talco Capital Corp. v. United States Rubber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Talco Capital Corp. v. United States Rubber Co.

32 A.D.2d 547, 300 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256

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

DecidedApril 14, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 547 (Talco Capital Corp. v. United States Rubber 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

Talco Capital Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., 32 A.D.2d 547, 300 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action to recover for extra work, labor, services and materials allegedly furnished, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 26, 1965, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (pursuant to CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. It is plaintiff’s contention that it has sufficiently shown the existence of a cause of action based on an implied contract or quasi contract. In our opinion, plaintiff has failed to show facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against defendant (cf. Miller v. Schloss, 218 N. Y. 400, 406-407; Tibbetts Contr. Corp. v. O & E Contr. Co., 15 N Y 2d 324, 334-335; Nieman-Irving & Co. v. Lazenby, 263 N. Y. 91, 94; Hanssel v. Tomasetti Contr. Corp., 257 App. Div. 1031, revd. on other grounds 283 N. Y. 164). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In this action to recover for extra work, labor, services and materials allegedly furnished, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 26, 1965, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (pursuant to CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. It is plaintiff’s contention that it has sufficiently shown the existence of a cause of action based on an implied contract or quasi contract. In our opinion, plaintiff has failed to show facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against defendant (cf. Miller v. Schloss, 218 N. Y. 400, 406-407; Tibbetts Contr. Corp. v. O & E Contr. Co., 15 N Y 2d 324, 334-335; Nieman-Irving & Co. v. Lazenby, 263 N. Y. 91, 94; Hanssel v. Tomasetti Contr. Corp., 257 App. Div. 1031, revd. on other grounds 283 N. Y. 164). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 547, 300 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talco-capital-corp-v-united-states-rubber-co-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack