From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petito v. Aiello

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 10, 1944
181 Misc. 371 (N.Y. App. Term 1944)

Opinion

February 10, 1944.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, DITORE, J.

Benjamin Shedler for appellant.

Alex Nechamkin for respondent.


MEMORANDUM


The check was given as a deposit and so states. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the payment made by the plaintiff in contemplation of the purchase of the equipment and the renting of the premises wherein the same was housed, was given as security for damage, if any, suffered by the defendant by reason of the plaintiff's refusal to consummate the sale and the lease. ( Brodfeld v. Schlanger, 104 N.Y.S. 369; Becker v. Rothschild, 141 N.Y.S. 528.) Defendant proved no damage and therefore plaintiff was entitled to judgment in his favor.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, upon the law, with $30 costs to the plaintiff, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the sum of $100 with appropriate costs in the court below.

MacCRATE, SMITH and STEINBRINK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Petito v. Aiello

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 10, 1944
181 Misc. 371 (N.Y. App. Term 1944)
Case details for

Petito v. Aiello

Case Details

Full title:TULLIO PETITO, Appellant, v. NATALE AIELLO, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Feb 10, 1944

Citations

181 Misc. 371 (N.Y. App. Term 1944)
47 N.Y.S.2d 447

Citing Cases

Cent. Booking Brooklyn, LLC v. Roazzi

Here, no provision was made by the parties for retention of the deposit in the event negotiations…

Amtorg Trading Corp. v. Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co.

Another ground relied on is that money advanced by a buyer or lessee may be treated, in the absence of…