Zenith Financial Corp. v. Jolly Gene Distributor, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 507, 261 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 507 (Zenith Financial Corp. v. Jolly Gene Distributor, 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
Zenith Financial Corp. v. Jolly Gene Distributor, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 507, 261 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

In an action by the assignee of a contract for the leasing and sale of certain food-vending machines, to recover from the defendant corporate purchaser and the defendant guarantor the balance of monthly payments and attorney’s fees allegedly due under the contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 5, 1964, which denied its motion made pursuant to CPLR 4404 (subd. [b]): (a) to set aside the court’s decision, made after a non jury trial, and to set aside the judgment entered thereon dismissing the complaint on the ground that the assignment of the contract failed to comply with the provisions of the applicable statute (Personal Property Law, § 403, subd. 3, par. [a]); and (b) for judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for the relief demanded in the complaint. Order reversed on the law; plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent of setting aside the decision and judgment; the judgment is vacated and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the machines in question were goods purchased by the defendant corporation for a commercial or business use within the meaning of the statute (Personal Property Law, art. 10 ['Retail Instalment Sales Act]) and are therefore excluded from the protection of its provisions (Welch v. Campbell, 197 Misc. 165, affd. 278 App. Div. 605). A new trial should be had, however, to determine the rights of the respective parties under the law without reference to this statute (Personal Property Law, art. 10). Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Morgese
161 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Ruminant Nitrogen Products v. Zittel
78 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
GTP Leisure Products, Inc. v. Cannella
58 A.D.2d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 507, 261 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenith-financial-corp-v-jolly-gene-distributor-inc-nyappdiv-1965.