Weiser v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiser v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 740, 346 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 740 (Weiser v. McCormack Motor Sales, 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

Weiser v. McCormack Motor Sales, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 740, 346 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for money had and received, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 19, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Plaintiff claims he purchased a Continental Mark IV automobile from defendant for $6,500 ($5,800 by a bank check and $700 in cash). Defendant contends that the automobile was valued at over $10,000 and has refused to either deliver the vehicle or refund the money, asserting that it was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen, who has since been indicted therefor. In our opinion, in the interests of justice, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692; Goldstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 41 A D 2d 556). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for money had and received, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 19, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Plaintiff claims he purchased a Continental Mark IV automobile from defendant for $6,500 ($5,800 by a bank check and $700 in cash). Defendant contends that the automobile was valued at over $10,000 and has refused to either deliver the vehicle or refund the money, asserting that it was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by one of its salesmen, who has since been indicted therefor. In our opinion, in the interests of justice, a trial should be had on all the issues presented (Bernstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 40 A D 2d 692; Goldstein v. McCormack Motor Sales, 41 A D 2d 556). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 740, 346 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiser-v-mccormack-motor-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1973.