Heller v. U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heller v. U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

101 A.D.2d 807, 475 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18462

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

DecidedMay 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 807 (Heller v. U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp.) 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

Heller v. U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 101 A.D.2d 807, 475 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a breach of warranty action, defendant U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Suzuki) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.), dated September 20, 1983, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Suzuki’s affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations, and denied Suzuki’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it based on its Statute of Limitations defense, f Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion denied and defendant Suzuki’s cross motion granted. KThe action against Suzuki, the manufacturer of a motorcycle, for breach of warranty, commenced more than four years after Suzuki sold the motorcycle, was untimely as a matter of law (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-725; Doyle v Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, 90 AD2d 366; Fazio v Ford Motor Corp., 69 AD2d 896). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur. [120 Misc 2d 321.]

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

In a breach of warranty action, defendant U. S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Suzuki) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.), dated September 20, 1983, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Suzuki’s affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations, and denied Suzuki’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it based on its Statute of Limitations defense, f Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion denied and defendant Suzuki’s cross motion granted. KThe action against Suzuki, the manufacturer of a motorcycle, for breach of warranty, commenced more than four years after Suzuki sold the motorcycle, was untimely as a matter of law (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-725; Doyle v Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, 90 AD2d 366; Fazio v Ford Motor Corp., 69 AD2d 896). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur. [120 Misc 2d 321.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 807, 475 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heller-v-u-s-suzuki-motor-corp-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack