Case Name: Samuel N. Silberman and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Parisian Shoe Company, Appellants, v. Irving Engel and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Engel & Moskowitz, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-10-25
Citations: 125 Misc. 816
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel N. Silberman and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Parisian Shoe Company, Appellants, v. Irving Engel and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Engel & Moskowitz, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Samuel N. Silberman and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Parisian Shoe Company, Appellants, v. Irving Engel and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Engel & Moskowitz, Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
October 25, 1924.
Samuel Widder, for the appellants.
Grauer & Rathkopf, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Judgment unanimously modified upon the law by increasing the amount of plaintiffs' recovery to $894.11, with interest and appropriate costs in the court below, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to appellants.
Plaintiffs' claim was conceded. Defendants' counterclaim should not have been allowed. It was based upon an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of goods. The goods were received by the defendants on August 9, 1923. Within three days thereafter they had been examined by defendants, and at that time the alleged defects had been discovered and the claimed breach of warranty was known to exist. Defendants, however, did not return, or offer to return, the goods until September 17,1923, and made no claim that they were not according to contract before September 5, 1923, and then the complaint was merely as to two or three of the articles. Concededly, some of the shoes were of a novelty style and were salable within only a short period after their receipt by defendants.
Under all the circumstances disclosed by the record we think as a matter of law defendants did not give notice to the plaintiffs within a reasonable time. (Silberstein v. Blum, 167 App. Div. 660; Kaufmann v. Levy, 102 Misc. 689.) Defendants were obliged to give such notice whether they sought to rescind or merely to recover damages (Pers. Prop. Law, § 129, 130, 150, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571) and cannot recover because they failed to do so. (Schnitzer v. Lang, 207 App. Div. 595, 599; Ficklen Tobacco Co. v. Friedberg, 196 id. 409, 412; Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Wilson & Son, 235 N. Y. 489, 501.)
Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.