From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 15, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the subject contract, which was for the installation of marble floors in the plaintiffs' condominium, fell within the ambit of CPLR 4544 as one involving a "consumer transaction" wherein the service performed is primarily for household purposes (CPLR 4544; Matter of Filippazzo v. Garden State Brickface Co., 120 A.D.2d 663; cf., Drelich v. Kenlyn Homes, 86 A.D.2d 648). The court also properly concluded that the "Terms and Conditions" in the subject contract are not admissible into evidence against the plaintiffs at trial since they are printed in a type size that fails to satisfy the type size requirement set forth in CPLR 4544.

The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1996
226 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates

Case Details

Full title:FRANK BAUMAN et al., Respondents, v. EAGLE CHASE ASSOCIATES et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 107

Citing Cases

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Glick

Whether a contract's print size violates Sec. 4544 is inherently a triable issue of fact that precludes the…

Hamilton v. Khalife

As a result, Gulf, as subrogee of BMW, is not barred under the antisubrogation rule from seeking…