De Rovira v. Lumex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Rovira v. Lumex, Inc.

92 A.D.2d 879, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 14, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 879 (De Rovira v. Lumex, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Rovira v. Lumex, Inc., 92 A.D.2d 879, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Lumex^Jnc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), entered February 19,1982, which denied its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of warranty cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion on the trial of this action. While defendant Lumex, Inc., contends that the operative events relative to the breach of warranty cause of action occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment to section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code (L 1975, ch 774), a finding to this effect cannot be made on this record (see McKay v Jefmar Wash & Dry, 84 AD2d 576; see, also, Martin v Dierck Equip. Co., 43 NY2d 583, 589-590). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Thompson and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Lumex^Jnc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), entered February 19,1982, which denied its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of warranty cause of action. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to renewal of the motion on the trial of this action. While defendant Lumex, Inc., contends that the operative events relative to the breach of warranty cause of action occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment to section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code (L 1975, ch 774), a finding to this effect cannot be made on this record (see McKay v Jefmar Wash & Dry, 84 AD2d 576; see, also, Martin v Dierck Equip. Co., 43 NY2d 583, 589-590). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Thompson and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 879, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-rovira-v-lumex-inc-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack