Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc. 95 Misc. 2d 834

← Cases

Mais v. Futuristic Foods, Inc.

95 Misc. 2d 834 Court Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, Decision date 1978-02-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 834
Hector N. Mais, Respondent, v Futuristic Foods, Inc., Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
February 21, 1978
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Goidel, Goidel & Helfenstein, P. C. (Alvin I. Goidel and Bruce S. Leffler of counsel), for appellant. William J. Brennan, amicus curiae.
p. 835
OPINION OF THE COURT

Judgment of the court below ( 90 Misc 2d 259 ) affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff established his cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant failed to establish its defense of accord and satisfaction (see Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 AD2d 565 ). Moreover, in view of the undisputed facts contained in the record, it cannot be said that the court’s opinion was affected by its consultations with a Federal agency. We are, thus, of the opinion that substantial justice has been done between the parties (CCA, § 1807).

Concur: Pino, P. J., and Weinstein, J.; Rinaldi, J., taking no part.

Cases cited