From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brunella v. Bracchi

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 31, 1928
131 Misc. 301 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)

Opinion

January 31, 1928.

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, County of New York.

Guido J. Giudici, for the appellant.

Julius Hallheimer, for the respondent.


It was error to deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The merchandise came into the possession of the plaintiff on or about March 29, 1924. He gave notice to the defendant of the defendant's alleged breach of warranty on or about September 17, 1924. This notice was not within a reasonable time after the plaintiff should have known of such breach, and the court should have held that as matter of law the notice was unreasonably delayed and the defendant not liable.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

LEVY and CRAIN, JJ., concur.


I dissent on the authority of Schnitzer v. Lang ( 239 N.Y. 1).


Summaries of

Brunella v. Bracchi

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 31, 1928
131 Misc. 301 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)
Case details for

Brunella v. Bracchi

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE BRUNELLA, Respondent, v. EMILIO BRACCHI, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1928

Citations

131 Misc. 301 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)
226 N.Y.S. 732

Citing Cases

State ex rel Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hughes

The Court of Appeals properly determined that the language was susceptible of more than one interpretation…

Spencer v. Travelers Ins. Co.

We are of the opinion that this point is not well taken, because the insurance policy involved in this case…