Case ID: misc_131/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Bijur, J. (dissenting).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Brunella, Respondent, v. Emilio Bracchi, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 31, 1928.
    Sales — breach of warranty — notice to defendant in September, 1924, of breach of warranty as to goods delivered in March, 1924, unreasonably delayed — defendant not liable.
    Notice to defendant, on or about September 17, 1924, of the defendant’s breach of warranty as to merchandise delivered to plaintiff on or about March 29, 1924, was not within a reasonable time after plaintiff should have known of such breach and, therefore, it was error to deny defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
    Bijur, J., dissents, with memorandum.
    Appeal by defendant from judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, county of New York, in favor of plaintiff.
    
      Guido J. Giudici, for the appellant.
    
      Julius Hallheimer, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

It was error to deny the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The merchandise came into the possession of the plaintiff on or about March 29, 1924. He gave notice to the defendant of the defendant’s alleged breach of warranty on or about September 17, 1924. This notice was not within a reasonable time after the plaintiff should have known of such breach, and the court should have held that as matter of law the notice was unreasonably delayed and the defendant not liable.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Levy and Crain, JJ., concur.

Bijur, J. (dissenting).

I dissent on the authority of Schnitzer v. Lang (239 N. Y. 1).