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

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

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).

45 A.D.2d 718 (Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Household Finance Corporation v. Goldring
43 N.E.2d 715 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.
69 Misc. 2d 171 (New York Supreme Court, 1972)