Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.

37 A.D.3d 218, 830 N.Y.S.2d 530
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 8, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 218 (Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.) 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
Hicksville Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., 37 A.D.3d 218, 830 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 12, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, plaintiffs causes of action for breach of express warranty and breach of contract, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 7, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint alleging violation of General Business Law § 349, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The cause of action for breach of express warranty was properly dismissed for failure to set forth the terms of the alleged warranty with sufficient particularity to give fair notice thereof (CPLR 3013; see Murrin v Ford Motor Co., 303 AD2d 475, 477 [2003]). Plaintiffs allegation that it purchased the allegedly defective product from defendant is flatly contradicted by defendant’s sales records, and, absent any evidence in plaintiffs opposition tending to substantiate such allegation, the cause of action for breach of contract was properly dismissed (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see Mark Hampton, Inc. v Bergreen, 173 AD2d 220 [1991], lv denied 80 NY2d 788 [1992]). The cause of action under General Business Law § 349 was properly dismissed for lack of evidence tending to show a material deceptive act or omission. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Related

Wedel Software USA Inc. v. Miracle Channel Assn.
2024 NY Slip Op 31956(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Almonte v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.
39 Misc. 3d 874 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Davis v. Lancaster
30 Misc. 3d 885 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Charles v. Suvannavejh
28 Misc. 3d 1157 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 218, 830 N.Y.S.2d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicksville-dry-cleaners-inc-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-nyappdiv-2007.