Stream v. CBK Agronomics, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Stream v. CBK Agronomics, Inc., 48 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“typographers experienced difficulties in use of the machinery almost from the moment of installation....”
24 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Holbrook v. LINK-BELT CONST. EQUIPMENT (washctapp, 2000-11-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Holbrook v. LINK-BELT CONST. EQUIPMENT
Wash. Ct. App. · 2000 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
typographers experienced difficulties in use of the machinery almost from the moment of installation....
discussed Cited "see" Thornton Burns Owners, Inc. v. Navas
N.Y. App. Term. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 359 US 314, 318-319 [1959]; see Stream v CBK Agronomics, 79 Misc 2d 607, 609 [1974], mod on other grounds 48 AD2d 637 [1975] [“‘(Payment) is an act in which the debtor tenders and the creditor accepts that which is offered’,” quoting Matter of Kelly, 151 Misc 277, 280-281 (1934), quoting Thompson v Kellogg, 23 Mo 281, 285 (1856) (emphasis in original)]; Hutchings v Securities Exch.
discussed Cited "see" Sweetapple Plastics, Inc. v. Shuman (In Re Sweetapple Plastics, Inc.) (2×)
Bankr. M.D. Ga. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stream v. CBK Agronomics, Inc., 79 Misc.2d 607, 361 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1974), modified, 48 A.D.2d 637 , 368 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1975). ('Thus ‘a check ... becomes absolute payment only when it is paid by the bank in due course.'" (quoting 3 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, at 144 (2d ed.))). 12 . 297 U.S. 227 , 56 S.Ct. 450 , 80 L.Ed. 655 (1936). 13 .
cited Cited "see" Long Island Lighting Co. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gemini Typographers, Inc. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 48 A.D.2d 637 , 368 N.Y.S.2d 210, 212 (1st Dep’t 1975); Mittasch v. Seal Lock Burial Vault, Inc., supra, 344 N.Y.S.2d at 102 .
discussed Cited "see" Standard Alliance Industries, Inc. v. The Black Clawson Company, Standard Alliance Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. The Black Clawson Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
6th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gemeni Typographers v. Mergenthaler Lino Co., 48 A.D.2d 637 , 368 N.Y.S.2d 210 (1975). 37 Plaintiff thirdly argues that Black Clawson should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense because it promised to repair the defects and spent over five months attempting to do so.
cited Cited "see" Standard Alliance Industries, Inc. v. Black Clawson Co.
6th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gemeni Typographers v. Mergenthaler Lino Co., 48 A.D.2d 637 , 368 N.Y.S.2d 210 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Prefabco, Inc. v. Olin Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
Additionally, as stated by Special Term, "it is clear, for pleading purposes, that Prefabco’s cause of action is not barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations [of New York] (CPLR 213 [9]; see also Gemini Typographers, Inc., v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 48 AD2d 637) [but that] it is undisputed that this action would be barred under the Statute of Limitations of any other state having apparent jurisdiction”, (including Pennsylvania).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arnold C. Stream
v.
CBK Agronomics, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 22, 1975.
48 A.D.2d 637
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Washington (1)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 31, 1974, in favor of plaintiff in the total sum of $156,594.75, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of deleting therefrom the $18,750 counsel fee awarded and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The note sued upon obligated the maker to pay a collection fee "in the event collection * * * is made by the holder’s attorney after default”. At the commencement of the trial plaintiff conceded that, except "To a small extent”, the unpaid balance of the note would be retained by himself and his law firm. Since the holders themselves undertook the collection process, no basis exists for the award of a legal fee. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ. [79 Misc 2d 607.J