Case ID: misc_137/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heneve Holding Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Louis E. Kleban & Son, Inc., Defendant.
    City Court of New York, Bronx County,
    March 27, 1930.
    
      
      Charles S. Rosenthal, for the plaintiff.
    
      Shapiro Bros., for the defendant.
   Evans, J.

The action is for breach of a warranty in a full

covenant warranty deed, under seal, conveying real property. Plaintiff wants this cause put upon the commercial calendar. It claims that the action comes under the head of subdivision (j) of rule IV of the rules of this court, which permits actions on a guarantee ” to be put on the commercial calendar. If the cause of action were for damages arising out of a contract for the sale of goods, it could properly be placed on the commercial calendar under subdivision (i) of the rule. There seems to be no provision made on the commercial calendar for any action for damages arising out of a sale of real property. The only way this cause can be put on this calendar is to hold that an action for breach of warranty arising out of a deed for the sale of realty is an action on a guaranty. The words warranty ” and guaranty ” may, at different times, when loosely used, have similar meanings. But it is quite clear that the phrase, an action on a guarantee,” as used in the rule, does not cover the cause at bar.

Motion for reargument granted, and, on the reargument, the original disposition stands.