Turner Press, Inc. v. Gould
| Decision Date | 23 June 1980 |
| Citation | 76 A.D.2d 906,429 N.Y.S.2d 239 |
| Parties | TURNER PRESS, INC., Respondent, v. Myron I. GOULD, Individually and d/b/a Myron Gould Associates, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Baratta & Goldstein, New York City (Howard J. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Kazlow & Kazlow, White Plains (Murray S. Lubitz, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, TITONE and LAZER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In this action to recover moneys allegedly due and owing for printed materials sold and delivered, defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, dated February 22, 1979, which granted plaintiff judgment, after a nonjury trial, in the principal sum of $3,756.14.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On this record, we agree with Trial Term's conclusion that defendant failed to establish that he acted as agent for a disclosed principal, Grunmar Industries. The trial court's finding that defendant acted as a principal is also supported by the strong inference to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff's evidence as a result of defendant's failure to take the stand to contradict plaintiff's case (see Noce v. Kaufman, 2 N.Y.2d 347, 161 N.Y.S.2d 1, 141 N.E.2d 529).
Plaintiff's dealings were exclusively with the defendant. He submitted purchase orders to plaintiff which dispatched corresponding bills to him and received partial payment from him. Upon defendant's failure to make full payment on the order, plaintiff clearly was warranted in seeking the balance from him. Any language in the purchase order contract to the effect that defendant would not be liable to plaintiff in his individual capacity for a client's default is diluted by further contractual language implying precisely the opposite. Defendant drafted the contract, which is internally inconsistent in material respects. In light of the ambiguity of the contract, Trial Term was warranted in invoking the rule of strict construction and interpreting the document in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the nondrafting party.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lefton v. Freedman
... ... Hastings, 211 N.Y. 199, 105 N.E. 194; Turner Press, Inc. v. Gould Associates, 76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d ... 239; ... ...
-
American Nat. Bank & Trust of New Jersey v. Alba
...may be drawn against a party who fails to testify (Noce v. Kaufman, 2 N.Y.2d 347, 161 N.Y.S.2d 1, 141 N.E.2d 529; Turner Press v. Gould, 76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d 239). Consequently, we conclude that Special Term's holding that Leshen was defendant's agent to receive service should not be......
-
Stein v. McDowell
...Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 42, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961, 405 N.E.2d 205; Lefton v. Freedman, 163 A.D.2d 360, 362, 559 N.Y.S.2d 330; Turner Press v. Gould, 76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d 239). The general rule is that attorneys' fees are not compensable in the absence of statutory authority ( see City of Buffa......
-
Trina Solar US, Inc. v. Jasmin Solar Pty LTD
...521–22 (1st Dep’t 2002), aff’d as modified on other grounds, 307 A.D.2d 238, 763 N.Y.S.2d 270 (2003) ; Turner Press, Inc. v. Gould, 76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d 239, 240 (2d Dep’t 1980). We turn to New York law, which governs the Contract, to resolve that dispute.New York courts have long he......