Teitelbaum v. Hald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitelbaum v. Hald

1 A.D.2d 668, 146 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 668 (Teitelbaum v. Hald) 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

Teitelbaum v. Hald, 1 A.D.2d 668, 146 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

It may have been intended, as plaintiff contends and. construes the complaint, to allege a single cause of action for breach of warranty. The complaint, however, sets forth chronologically a series of events including the purchase and sale of a piece of machinery, a subsequent written agreement between the parties containing a warranty and a further oral agreement to enter into a second formal contract in writing which defendant failed to execute. The ultimate claim of the plaintiff is that the machine did not function properly with resulting damage. The complaint is so framed that it is impossible to separate what may be historical facts from the gravamen of the action. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Bastow and Cox, JJ.

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

It may have been intended, as plaintiff contends and. construes the complaint, to allege a single cause of action for breach of warranty. The complaint, however, sets forth chronologically a series of events including the purchase and sale of a piece of machinery, a subsequent written agreement between the parties containing a warranty and a further oral agreement to enter into a second formal contract in writing which defendant failed to execute. The ultimate claim of the plaintiff is that the machine did not function properly with resulting damage. The complaint is so framed that it is impossible to separate what may be historical facts from the gravamen of the action. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Bastow and Cox, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 668, 146 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitelbaum-v-hald-nyappdiv-1955.