Legal Opinion

Winsey v. Spitzer Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided April 24, 1958PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Since the written sales contract contained an effective disclaimer of warranties and there was no claim of fraud in inducing the sale, a recovery based on the breach of an express oral warranty cannot be sustained. (Broderick Haulage v. Mack-International Motor Truck Corp., 1 A D 2d 649; cf. Angerosa v. White Co., 248 App. Div. 425, affd. 275 N. Y. 524.)

The record does not show whether the defendant complied with the provisions of section 64 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (as amd. July 1,1954) nor was the question of the effect of noncompliance litigated on the trial. A new trial should be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Angerosa v. White Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
  2. Angerosa v. White CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Natale v. Martin Volkswagen, Inc.Utica City Court · 1978
  2. Dato v. VatlandNassau County District Court · 1962
  3. Rice v. R. M. Burritt Motors, Inc.Oswego City Court · 1984
  4. Cumo v. BrayGlens Falls City Court · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API