Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.

45 A.D.2d 718, 356 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4846

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

DecidedJune 3, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 718 (Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.) 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

Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc., 45 A.D.2d 718, 356 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action (styled as a class action) for a judgment inter alia declaring that defendant’s method of billing its customers, including plaintiff, under retail installment credit agreements is violative of subdivision 3 of section 413 of the Personal Property Law and illegal, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 28, 1972, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In the light of the determination in Zachary v. R. H. Macy & Co. (31 N Y 2d 443), the complaint should have been dismissed. Moreover, in connection with the untenability as a matter of law of the second cause of action, see Household Finance v. Div. 524, 527, affd. 289 N. Y. 574). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur. [69 Misc 2d 171.]

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

In this action (styled as a class action) for a judgment inter alia declaring that defendant’s method of billing its customers, including plaintiff, under retail installment credit agreements is violative of subdivision 3 of section 413 of the Personal Property Law and illegal, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 28, 1972, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In the light of the determination in Zachary v. R. H. Macy & Co. (31 N Y 2d 443), the complaint should have been dismissed. Moreover, in connection with the untenability as a matter of law of the second cause of action, see Household Finance v. Div. 524, 527, affd. 289 N. Y. 574). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur. [69 Misc 2d 171.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 718, 356 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-m-fortunoff-of-westbury-inc-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack