Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp.
Opinion
The action for breach of warranty, even though it rests on a tortious or wrongful act committed by the defendant is independent of an action for negligence. The wrongful act is not neglect, and privity is an essential to recovery. (Greco v. Kresge Co., 277 R. V. 26, 30, 31, 34, 35; Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 264 R. Y. 390; Rinaldi v. Mohican Co., 225 N. Y. 70, 75.) This action is controlled [807] by subdivisions 1 and 3 of section 48 of the Civil Practice Act, the six-year statute. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johns ton, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur. [See post, pp. 918, 1009.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
279 A.D. 806 (Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.