Towne Buick-Opel, Inc. v. London Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Towne Buick-Opel, Inc. v. London Motors Corp.

116 A.D.2d 1000, 498 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51777

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 1000 (Towne Buick-Opel, Inc. v. London Motors Corp.) 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

Towne Buick-Opel, Inc. v. London Motors Corp., 116 A.D.2d 1000, 498 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: There are ambiguities in the terminology used in the conditional sales contract. Since a determination of the intent of the parties depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence, or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, there are triable issues of fact raised which preclude granting summary judgment (Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172; Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: There are ambiguities in the terminology used in the conditional sales contract. Since a determination of the intent of the parties depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence, or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, there are triable issues of fact raised which preclude granting summary judgment (Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172; Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 1000, 498 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towne-buick-opel-inc-v-london-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack