From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oxenfeldt v. Yonofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 14, 1950
276 App. Div. 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Opinion

February 14, 1950.

Appeal from Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, CARLIN, J.

Sol Nathan for appellant.

Hyman E. Goldstein of counsel ( Geller Gussak, attorneys), for respondent.


The complaint herein set forth two causes of action. The first was to recover damages for fraud in misrepresenting the buyer's solvency in connection with the sale of certain sweaters. The second was to recover like damages based on the alleged fraudulent scheme of defendant to transfer all of his assets to a corporation immediately after the sale and before payment became due. The case was submitted to the jury solely as one in fraud. Nevertheless, the trial court charged the jury that if plaintiff was entitled to recover he must be awarded the agreed selling price of the goods.

In an action for damages for fraud, the measure of damage would be plaintiff's actual pecuniary loss which in this instance would be the value of the goods rather than the agreed price, as any element of profit would be excluded ( Reno v. Bull, 226 N.Y. 546; Sager v. Friedman, 270 N.Y. 472; Bower v. Palmer, 281 N.Y. 341).

Assuming that there was prima facie proof of fraud, this error with respect to the measure of damages requires a reversal of the determination of the Appellate Term and of the judgment of the City Court, and a new trial, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

PECK, P.J., GLENNON, CALLAHAN, VAN VOORHIS and SHIENTAG, JJ., concur.

Determination of Appellate Term, and judgment of City Court unanimously reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.


Summaries of

Oxenfeldt v. Yonofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 14, 1950
276 App. Div. 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)
Case details for

Oxenfeldt v. Yonofsky

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD OXENFELDT, Respondent, v. HARRY YONOFSKY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1950

Citations

276 App. Div. 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)
94 N.Y.S.2d 785

Citing Cases

Ming Hin Chin v. Fletcher

In such case, Reno v. Bull ( supra) generally limits the buyer's recovery to his actual loss and, except in…

Aigen v. Dimin

As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is apparent from plaintiffs' answers to…