Zucker v. Ainwood Motors, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zucker v. Ainwood Motors, Inc.

11 Misc. 2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 30, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Misc. 2d 887 (Zucker v. Ainwood Motors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zucker v. Ainwood Motors, Inc., 11 Misc. 2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the record presented the court was justified in submitting to the jury the issue of the fair market value of the ear on the day of defendant’s breach. However, the extra items totalling $191.55 plaintiff paid in the purchase of a similar car from another dealer are not proper items of damage since they were not included in the contract of sale between plaintiff and defendant. The purchase of the car from another dealer cost $3,560.82 (after credit given for an old car turned in) whereas the agreed price with defendant was $3,193 (after credit to be given for an old car to be turned in), resulting in an excess cost of $367.82, and deducting therefrom the extra items above mentioned totalling $191.55, leaves a balance of $176.27, which, added to the down payment of $200, is the total amount plaintiff is entitled to recover.

[888]*888The judgment should be modified by reducing it to the sum of $376.27 and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

On the record presented the court was justified in submitting to the jury the issue of the fair market value of the ear on the day of defendant’s breach. However, the extra items totalling $191.55 plaintiff paid in the purchase of a similar car from another dealer are not proper items of damage since they were not included in the contract of sale between plaintiff and defendant. The purchase of the car from another dealer cost $3,560.82 (after credit given for an old car turned in) whereas the agreed price with defendant was $3,193 (after credit to be given for an old car to be turned in), resulting in an excess cost of $367.82, and deducting therefrom the extra items above mentioned totalling $191.55, leaves a balance of $176.27, which, added to the down payment of $200, is the total amount plaintiff is entitled to recover.

[888]*888The judgment should be modified by reducing it to the sum of $376.27 and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Misc. 2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zucker-v-ainwood-motors-inc-nyappterm-1958.