From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ARNOLD v. BLOOM KRUP

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 29, 1953
203 Misc. 637 (N.Y. App. Term 1953)

Opinion

January 29, 1953.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, SHAPIRO, J.

Samuel B. Hurwitz for appellant.

Joseph V. Matatia for respondent.


The rescission judgment entered below is reversed on the grounds that plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of section 150 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law and on the further ground of waiver of all warranties. (See Personal Property Law, § 152, and Lumbrazo v. Woodruff, 256 N.Y. 92.) The case of Horowitz v. Bursens ( 198 Misc. 399) is distinguishable on the facts.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

EDER and HECHT, JJ., concur; HAMMER, J., dissents and votes for affirmance.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

ARNOLD v. BLOOM KRUP

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 29, 1953
203 Misc. 637 (N.Y. App. Term 1953)
Case details for

ARNOLD v. BLOOM KRUP

Case Details

Full title:JANE ARNOLD, Respondent, v. BLOOM KRUP, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 29, 1953

Citations

203 Misc. 637 (N.Y. App. Term 1953)
122 N.Y.S.2d 431