People v. Koch

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Kellina

    23 Misc. 134 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)   Cited 2 times

    Q. That it was supposed to be adulterated? A. Yes, sir. Q. You took the milk back? A. Yes, sir. The learned counsel for the appellant calls our attention to the case of People v. Koch, 19 Misc. 634; in which case it is held by the Appellate Court, Daly, P.J., that "A milkman, going his rounds to daily customers offers and exposes his milk for sale at every step of the journey, and in case of its being detected as impure, he is not relieved from liability by the fact that he did not actually sell from the can from which the impure sample was taken, but returned it to the person from whom he bought it, in the absence of any proof that he intended to have it examined before delivery." This authority is unquestionably controlling in the case at bar, if we can find any evidence to support the conclusion that defendant's driver was engaged in delivering milk to customers, at the time the impure milk was found in his wagon.

  2. Wickham v. Levine

    47 Misc. 2d 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)   Cited 9 times
    In Wickham v. Levine, 47 Misc.2 d 1, 261 N.Y.S.2d 702 (Sup. Ct. 1965), affirmed 24 A.D.2 d 1035, 264 N.Y.S.2d 785 (App. Div. 1965) and 23 N.Y.2d 923, 298 N.Y.S.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1969), the court enjoined the sale of Chicken Delight cooked-to-order chicken parts for off-premises consumption other than by net weight.

    Mkts. of the Agriculture and Markets Law or 1 NYCRR 221.9(c), or all of them, pertain and the determination turns on the time when the products are offered or exposed for sale, the time when the food and food products are packaged or wrapped and the time when the sale takes place. An offering or exposure for sale consists in having the article in question in stock for the purposes of sale without actually making such sale ( People v. Lewis, 138 App. Div. 673, 675; People v. Branfman Son, 147 Misc. 290, 294-295; People v. Koch, 19 Misc. 634). A sale consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-106, subd. [1]; Matter of Sears, Roebuck Co. v. McGoldrick, 279 N.Y. 184, 187, supra; Matter of Pennsylvania Whiskey Distr. Corp. v. Bruckman, 256 App. Div. 781, 783; Hall v. French-American Wine Co., 149 App. Div. 609, 612; Masao Hirasuna v. McKenney, 245 F.2d 98, 102; United States v. Balanovski, 236 F.2d 298, 304-305; cf. former Personal Property Law, § 82, subd 2) and, unless otherwise explicitly agreed, title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-105, subd. [1]; § 2-401, subd. [2]; cf. former Personal Property Law, § 100, rule 2, rule 4, subd. 2, rule 5; § 156, subd. 4; Matter of Gunther's Sons v. McGoldrick, 255 App. Div. 139, 142, affd. 279 N.Y. 148; McConihe v. New York Erie R.R. Co., 20 N.Y. 495, 497; Decker v. Furniss, 14 N.Y. 611

  3. People v. Branfman Son, Inc.

    147 Misc. 290 (N.Y. Misc. 1933)   Cited 3 times

    No apparent object was disclosed for carting the cream through the streets of Rochester at this time in the morning for any other purpose, and we are unable to conclude that a jury would have overstepped its powers in finding that the cream was being peddled or offered for sale." (See, also, People v. Koch, 19 Misc. 634.) Possession in and of itself is not exposure for sale. Possession under the circumstances disclosed in this case leads to the irresistible conclusion that the defendants possessed the meat in question as part of the stock of their business.