Hamilton Printing Co. v. Ernest Payne Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1966 |
| Citation | 273 N.Y.S.2d 929,26 A.D.2d 876 |
| Parties | HAMILTON PRINTING CO., Inc., Respondent, v. ERNEST PAYNE CORPORATION, Appellant, and H. Wolff Book Mfg. Co., Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Spero & Charnin, Sidney M. Spero, Jamaica, for appellant.
Wood, Morris, Sanford & Hatt, David W. Morris, Albany, for respondent.
Hirson & Bertini, New York City, for defendant.
Before GIBSON, P.J., HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and STALEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, denying appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss respondent's amended complaint upon the grounds it fails to state a cause of action.
Respondent seeks to recover from appellant and/or the Wolff Book Mfg. Co., Inc. for breach of warranty in connection with certain machinery it purchased. While the complaint taken alone indicates that appellant acted solely as an agent for a disclosed principal, Wolff Book Mfg. Co., and thus that there would ordinarily be no cause of action against it, Special Term found that Wolff Book's answer and appellant's own answer raise questions as to appellant's role in the transaction. In Wolff Book's answer it is suggested that appellant bought the equipment from Wolff Book and resold it to respondent and it is inferable from its own answer that it was a true broker and not in fact an agent.
Appellant urges that Special Term could not utilize these answers in reaching its decision, being limited solely to the face of the complaint. While this was the rule prior to the adoption of the CPLR (e.g., Wolk v. Royal Indemnity Co., 27 Misc.2d 478, 480, 210 N.Y.S.2d 677, 679), under the CPLR a motion such as the instant one is not addressed merely to the face of the pleading. CPLR 3211(c) makes available on motions such as the instant one all manner of extrinsic proof and it, therefore, follows that the answers here involved could properly be considered (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, § 3211.43; 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, pp. 408--409; Siegel, 1964 Practice Commentary to McKinney's CPLR Book 7B, 3211).
Order affirmed, with costs.
TAYLOR, J., not voting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. Meadow Gold Products Corp.
...bargaining agreement, the arbitrator's award and the order confirming it, as well as the memoranda of counsel. (Hamilton Printing Co. v. Payne, 26 A.D.2d 876, 273 N.Y.S.2d 929; 1136 Tenant's Corp. v. Rothenberg, 27 A.D.2d 830, 277 N.Y.S.2d 996, aff'd 21 N.Y.2d 995, 290 N.Y.S.2d 919, 238 N.E......
-
Lahti v. State
...by the parties in disposing of the motion. (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civil Practice, paragraph 3211.43; Hamilton Printing Co. v. Payne Corp., 26 A.D.2d 876, 273 N.Y.S.2d 929). The inquiry is whether the pleader has a cause of action rather than whether he has properly stated one. (6 Ca......
-
Rappaport v. International Playtex Corp.
... ... Bank of Buffalo, 32 A.D.2d 875, 302 N.Y.S.2d 60; Hamilton Print Co ... v. Payne Corp., 26 A.D.2d 876, 273 N.Y.S.2d 929; 4 ... ...
-
Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., Inc.
...255 N.E.2d 765, 767; Rapoport v. Schneider, 29 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 328 N.Y.S.2d 431, 436, 278 N.E.2d 642, 645; Hamilton Print Co. v. Payne Corp., 26 A.D.2d 876, 273 N.Y.S.2d 929; Harris v. Sobel, 31 A.D.2d 529, 295 N.Y.S.2d 181; Kelly v. Bank of Buffalo, 32 A.D.2d 875, 302 N.Y.S.2d Today, howe......