Arthur Jaffee Associates v. Bilsco Auto Service, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Arthur Jaffee Associates v. Bilsco Auto Service, Inc.

448 N.E.2d 792, 58 N.Y.2d 993, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2944

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 22, 1983·Published·Cited by 47 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

[995] The Appellate Division properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion papers presented no question of fact for trial sufficient to negate the validity and binding effect of the disclaimer of warranty coverage. In addition, on the facts of this case, there being no privity between the purchaser and the defendant there can be no implied warranty.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

[995] The Appellate Division properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion papers presented no question of fact for trial sufficient to negate the validity and binding effect of the disclaimer of warranty coverage. In addition, on the facts of this case, there being no privity between the purchaser and the defendant there can be no implied warranty.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Arthur Jaffee Associates v. Bilsco Auto Service, Inc., 448 N.E.2d 792, 58 N.Y.2d 993, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2944 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

448 N.E.2d 792 (Arthur Jaffee Associates v. Bilsco Auto Service, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related