Carl Gutmann & Co. v. Dan River Mills, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1968 |
| Citation | 30 A.D.2d 646,291 N.Y.S.2d 78 |
| Parties | CARL GUTMANN & CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. R. Bernstein, New York, City, for plaintiff-respondent.
D. C. Daland, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BOTEIN, P.J., and STEUER, CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN and RABIN, JJ.
Order entered July 10, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs or disbursements to either party, and the motion to strike the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations is denied.
The complaint contains allegations which sound either in indemnity or in breach of warranty, or in both. While the plaintiff indicates that the action is one merely for indemnity, that does not make it so. The allegations in the complaint govern and, as indicated, under the complaint in this action, a recovery can conceivably be had in indemnity or breach of warranty. What form the action will take will, of necessity, depend on the proof ultimately submitted upon trial. If it be in the nature of breach of warranty, the defense of Statute of Limitations would be proper (see Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Shiela-Lynn, Inc., 185 Misc. 689, 57 N.Y.S.2d 707, aff'd 270 App.Div. 835, 61 N.Y.S.2d 373.) Therefore, the defense should not be stricken. The Trial Judge will then be free to rule in connection with that defense, depending on the proof submitted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Siegel
...arrest or malicious prosecution; however, we must evaluate the allegations as set forth in the pleadings (e. g., Gutmann & Co. v. Dan River Mills, 30 A.D.2d 646, 291 N.Y.S.2d 78).6 Lincoln also contended that conduct actionable under the traditional tort category of malicious prosecution ca......
-
Wegorzewski v. Macrose Lumber & Trim Co.
...Sav. Bk. v. M. Kramer & Sons, Inc., 43 Misc.2d 731, 252 N.Y.S.2d 224 (Sup.Ct.1964); see also Carl Gutmann & Co., Inc. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 646, 291 N.Y.S.2d 78 (1st Dept. 1968); see generally 1 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac. Accordingly, the six-year statute of limit......
-
Ibach v. Grant Donaldson Service, Inc.
...(see Matter of Valstrey Serv. Corp. v. Bd. of Elec., 2 N.Y.2d 413, 161 N.Y.S.2d 52, 141 N.E.2d 565; Carl Gutmann & Co., Inc. v. Dan River Mills, Incorporated, 30 A.D.2d 646, 291 N.Y.S.2d 78; Musco v. Conte, 22 A.D.2d 121, 254 N.Y.S.2d 589; cf. W. T. Grant Co. v. Uneeda Doll Co., 19 A.D.2d 3......
-
Riland v. Frederick S. Todman & Co.
...assert affirmative defenses addressed to the full spectrum of plaintiff's pleading and potential proof (Gutmann & Co., Inc. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 646, 291 N.Y.S.2d 78).' Relying upon Sado v. Marlun Manufacturing Company, Inc., Sup., 196 N.Y.S.2d 32 (not officially reported), a......