Laminates Unlimited, Inc. v. Connecticut Plywood Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laminates Unlimited, Inc. v. Connecticut Plywood Corp.

257 A.D.2d 648, 682 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 610

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 648 (Laminates Unlimited, Inc. v. Connecticut Plywood 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

Laminates Unlimited, Inc. v. Connecticut Plywood Corp., 257 A.D.2d 648, 682 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of warranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Weiner, J.), dated December 11, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the court properly determined that the cause of action alleging breach of warranty was time-barred (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 [2]; Porrino v Sperling, 232 AD2d 618; Homart Dev. Co. v Graybar Elec. Co., 63 AD2d 727). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the August 15, 1995, release executed by the parties discharged all of the plaintiffs future claims against the defendants relating to the subject product (see, Leggio v Cantor Fitzgerald Inc., 182 AD2d 611), and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action for fraud (see, Edwil Indus. v Stroba Instruments Corp., 131 AD2d 425). Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of warranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Weiner, J.), dated December 11, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the court properly determined that the cause of action alleging breach of warranty was time-barred (see, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 [2]; Porrino v Sperling, 232 AD2d 618; Homart Dev. Co. v Graybar Elec. Co., 63 AD2d 727). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the August 15, 1995, release executed by the parties discharged all of the plaintiffs future claims against the defendants relating to the subject product (see, Leggio v Cantor Fitzgerald Inc., 182 AD2d 611), and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action for fraud (see, Edwil Indus. v Stroba Instruments Corp., 131 AD2d 425). Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 648, 682 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laminates-unlimited-inc-v-connecticut-plywood-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack