From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Royal Discount Corp. v. Luxor Sales Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 19, 1957
9 Misc. 2d 307 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)

Summary

In Royal Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp. (9 Misc.2d 307 [App Term, 1st Dept 1957]), it was ruled that the "terms `costs' and `expenses' as employed in the assignment agreement do not include attorney's fees, and attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of express language in the contract or statute" (at 308).

Summary of this case from Bank of N.Y. v. Fleet Bank

Opinion

December 19, 1957

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

Irving G. Schleimer for appellant.

Daniel Rosen for respondent.


An assignment of a retail installment contract, by which the seller warrants that the cash down payment specified as having been paid by the purchaser was actually paid, is breached when the proof establishes that the down payment was in fact less than the amount so warranted ( Commercial Credit Corp. v. Third Lafayette Sts. Garage, 226 App. Div. 235; Northeast Discount Corp. v. Queens Hill Motors, 150 N.Y.S.2d 848).

The terms "costs" and "expenses" as employed in the assignment agreement do not include attorney's fees, and attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of express language in the contract or statute ( Hayman v. Morris, 37 N.Y.S.2d 884).

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff in the sum of $426.13, with interest and costs.

HOFSTADTER, STEUER and HECHT, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Royal Discount Corp. v. Luxor Sales Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 19, 1957
9 Misc. 2d 307 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)

In Royal Discount Corp. v Luxor Motor Sales Corp. (9 Misc.2d 307 [App Term, 1st Dept 1957]), it was ruled that the "terms `costs' and `expenses' as employed in the assignment agreement do not include attorney's fees, and attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of express language in the contract or statute" (at 308).

Summary of this case from Bank of N.Y. v. Fleet Bank
Case details for

Royal Discount Corp. v. Luxor Sales Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROYAL DISCOUNT CORP., Appellant, v. LUXOR MOTOR SALES CORP., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 19, 1957

Citations

9 Misc. 2d 307 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)
170 N.Y.S.2d 382

Citing Cases

Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, S.A.

New York law insists that "[i]n the absence of an explicit contractual or statutory provision for the…

Wistron NeWeb Corp. v. Genesis Networks Telecom Servs.

; Royal Disc. Corp. v. Luxor Motor Sales Corp., 170 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (1st Dep't 1957) (same); cf.…