Morgan v. A.O. Smith Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. A.O. Smith Corp.

265 A.D.2d 536, 697 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10776

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 536 (Morgan v. A.O. Smith 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

Morgan v. A.O. Smith Corp., 265 A.D.2d 536, 697 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated July 20, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for fraud since the facts alleged in support of that cause of action were duplicative of the facts alleged in support of the time-barred causes of action to recover damages for breach of warranty (see, Jim Longo, Inc. v Rutigliano, 251 AD2d 547; Mastropieri v Solmar Constr. Co., 159 AD2d 698). A cause of action to recover damages for fraud will not lie when the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract (see, Jim Longo, Inc. v Rutigliano, supra; Alamo Contract Bldrs. v CTF Hotel Co., 242 AD2d 643; Weitz v Smith, 231 AD2d 518; Mastropieri v Solmar Constr. Co., supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, 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 breach of warranty and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated July 20, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraud.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for fraud since the facts alleged in support of that cause of action were duplicative of the facts alleged in support of the time-barred causes of action to recover damages for breach of warranty (see, Jim Longo, Inc. v Rutigliano, 251 AD2d 547; Mastropieri v Solmar Constr. Co., 159 AD2d 698). A cause of action to recover damages for fraud will not lie when the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract (see, Jim Longo, Inc. v Rutigliano, supra; Alamo Contract Bldrs. v CTF Hotel Co., 242 AD2d 643; Weitz v Smith, 231 AD2d 518; Mastropieri v Solmar Constr. Co., supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 536, 697 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-ao-smith-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack