Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp.

205 N.E.2d 863, 15 N.Y.2d 823, 257 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1594
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 11, 1965·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed without costs. The complaint states no cause of action, either in negligence or breach of warranty, against defendant Firestone. However, in reaching this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to consider the question—and we reserve it for a proper case—whether an action for breach of an implied warranty may ever be brought against the manufacturer of a component part such as an automobile tire. (Cf. Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 N Y 2d 432, 437.)

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.

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

Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp., 205 N.E.2d 863, 15 N.Y.2d 823, 257 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1594 (N.Y. 1965).

205 N.E.2d 863 (Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Franov v. Exxon Co.
178 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Collins v. Uniroyal, Inc.
315 A.2d 16 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1974)