Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953

Arnold v. Bloom & Krup

Arnold v. Bloom & Krup
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 29, 1953
203 Misc. 637; 122 N.Y.S.2d 431; 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1853

Counsel

Samuel B. Hurwitz for appellant., Joseph V. Matatia for respondent.

Arnold v. Bloom & Krup

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The rescission judgment entered below is reversed on the grounds that plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of section 150 of the Personal Property Law and on the further ground of waiver of all warranties. (See Personal Property Law, § 152, and Lumbrazo v. Woodruff, 256 N. Y. 92.) The case of Horowitz v. Bursens (198 Misc. 399) is distinguishable on the facts.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Eder and Hecht, JJ., concur; Hammer, J., dissents and votes for affirmance.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.