From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Angelo v. Bob Hastings Oldsmobile, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1983)

Opinion

Argued April 26, 1983

Decided June 2, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, EDWARD O. PROVENZANO, J.

Peter A. Harris and James S. Hinman for appellant.

Neva S. Flaherty and James Montgomery Quinn for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The findings of fact made by the trial court with respect to plaintiff's right to recover in his action for equitable rescission grounded in fraud, having been affirmed at the Appellate Division, may not be disturbed in our court, there being evidence in the record for their support, and such findings are sufficient as a matter of law to establish plaintiff's right to recover in that action. With respect to defendant's counterclaim for damages based on an alleged implied contract for storage, the determination of the Appellate Division that the proof was insufficient to establish such a contract more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

D'Angelo v. Bob Hastings Oldsmobile, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1983)
Case details for

D'Angelo v. Bob Hastings Oldsmobile, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS D'ANGELO, Respondent, v. BOB HASTINGS OLDSMOBILE, INC., Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1983

Citations

59 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1983)
464 N.Y.S.2d 724
451 N.E.2d 471

Citing Cases

Steen v. Bump

In effect, plaintiff sought equitable rescission of the broadly worded general release insofar as it applied…

Rush v. Oppenheimer Co., Inc.

As to his equitable claim for rescission based on material misstatement, Rush did not have to establish that…