From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 24, 1967
54 Misc. 2d 119 (N.Y. App. Term 1967)

Opinion

May 24, 1967

Appeal from the District Court of the County of Nassau, FRANCIS J. DONOVAN, J.

Keilson Keilson ( Joseph Keilson of counsel), for appellant.

Ira I. Van Leer for respondents.


While the evidence clearly warrants a finding that the contract was unconscionable (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-302), we are of the opinion that plaintiff should recover its net cost for the refrigerator-freezer, plus a reasonable profit, in addition to trucking and service charges necessarily incurred and reasonable finance charges.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered limited to an assessment of plaintiff's damages and entry of judgment thereon.

Concur — SCHWARTZWALD, FANELLI and BECKINELLA, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 24, 1967
54 Misc. 2d 119 (N.Y. App. Term 1967)
Case details for

Frostifresh Corp. v. Reynoso

Case Details

Full title:FROSTIFRESH CORPORATION, Appellant, v. LUIS REYNOSO et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: May 24, 1967

Citations

54 Misc. 2d 119 (N.Y. App. Term 1967)
281 N.Y.S.2d 964

Citing Cases

Carboni v. Arrospide

Similarly, in Frostifresh Corporation v. Reynoso (1966) 52 Misc.2d 26 [274 N.Y.S.2d 757] (revd. on other…

Brooklyn Union Gas v. Jimeniz

No longer can a seller hide behind it when acting in an unconscionable manner." (Nu Dimensions Figure Salons…