Cuba Cheese, Inc. v. Aurora Valley Meats, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Liberty Steel Products, Inc. v. Franco Steel Corp. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1999)
- Rienzi & Sons, Inc. v. I Buonatavola Sini S.R.L. (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Continental AFA Dispensing Co. v. AFA Polytek, B v. (In re Indesco International, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Campbell v. Bradco Supply Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Cliffstar Corp. v. Elmar Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Panda Capital Corp. v. Kopo International, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Mayfair Kitchen Center, Inc. v. Nigro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Malverne Distributors, Inc. v. Profile Records, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action for the purchase price of cheese sold and delivered to defendant. Defendant interposed an answer including a counterclaim for damages alleging that plaintiff breached its contract by selling cheese that was unfit for human consumption. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of its motion for summary judgment contending that defendant is barred, as a matter of law, from any remedy because it failed to timely notify plaintiff of the alleged breach (UCC 2-607 [3] [a]). A purchaser, even after acceptance of the goods, may upon timely notification of his intention to do so deduct from the purchase price all or any part of the damages resulting from the seller’s breach (UCC 2-717; Created Gemstones v Union Carbide Corp., 47 NY2d 250). Timely notification is governed by the standard of reasonableness and is a question of fact (UCC 2-607 [3] [a]; General Elec. Credit Corp. v Xerox Corp., 112 AD2d 30). We find sufficient proof in the record to raise a question of fact as to whether defendant timely notified plaintiff of the alleged breach. Special Term, therefore, properly denied the motion. We have examined the other arguments raised by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—reargument.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.