TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

AB MAGONIGLE TRUCKING CO., INC. v. Tambini

AB Magonigle Trucking Co. v. Tambini, 96 N.E.2d 900 (N.Y. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 18, 1951
Judges
Loughran
Citations
96 N.E.2d 900302 N.Y. 6171951 N.Y. LEXIS 810

Opinion

302 N.Y. 617 (1951)

A. B. Magonigle Trucking Co., Inc., Appellant,

v.

Jennie Tambini et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued November 29, 1950. Decided January 18, 1951 Louis Granat and James M. Fawcett for appellant.

Frank P. Luongo and Antonio M. Luongo for respondents.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ., concur.

*619 Per Curiam .

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed insofar as it dismisses the first and second causes of action in the amended complaint as to defendants Laurence F. Tambini and Tambini Storage Warehouse, Inc., and modified, insofar as it dismisses the second cause of action as against Jennie Tambini, by denying the motion to dismiss said cause of action insofar as it charges her with fraud, without costs. *620 Inasmuch as plaintiff's first cause of action is sufficient as against defendant Jennie Tambini under subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.; McKinney's Unconsol. Laws, § 8528, subd. [d]), its second cause of action is likewise sufficient against her ( Sno-Wite, Inc., v. Gerald Operating Corp. , 297 N.Y. 1007 ; Rosner v. Textile Binding & Trimming Co. , 300 N.Y. 319 ). Plaintiff has no cause of action against persons other than those defined as landlords in section 2 and persons in the nature of purchasers from the landlord as defined in subdivision (d) of section 8 of the Commercial Rent Law ( Rosner v. Textile Binding & Trimming Co. , supra ; David v. Fayman , 298 N.Y. 669 ; Rosenbluth v. Sackadorf , 298 N.Y. 761 ).

The judgments should be modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Judgment accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lyon Ford, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corporation337 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.N.Y. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Lyon Ford, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corporation337 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.N.Y. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
David v. Fayman, 48 N.E.2d 404 (N.Y. 1948) 29
Rosner v. Textile Binding & Trimming Co., 90 N.E.2d 481 (N.Y. 1950) 18
Rosenbluth v. Sackadorf, 83 N.E.2d 158 (N.Y. 1948) 15
Sno-Wite, Inc. v. Gerald Operating Corp., 80 N.E.2d 534 (N.Y. 1948) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list