Naftilos Painting, Inc. v. Cianbro Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naftilos Painting, Inc. v. Cianbro Corp.

275 A.D.2d 975, 713 N.Y.S.2d 626

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 975 (Naftilos Painting, Inc. v. Cianbro 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

Naftilos Painting, Inc. v. Cianbro Corp., 275 A.D.2d 975, 713 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Naftilos Painting, Inc. (plaintiff), the plaintiff in action No. 3, was the painting subcontractor in connection with a renovation of the south Grand Island bridges. The defendant in that action, The Valspar Corporation (defendant), supplied the paint specified for the project by the owner of the bridges, the New York State Thruway Authority. After the project was completed, extensive rusting appeared on the bridges. The general contractor required plaintiff to remediate the rusting at its own expense.

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. None of the negligence and/or negligent misrepresentation causes of action is predicated upon “the violation of a legal duty independent of that created by the contract” (Scott v KeyCorp, 247 AD2d 722, 725), and thus the first three causes of action of the complaint should have been dismissed (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389-390; Scott v KeyCorp, supra, at 725; Alamo Contract Bldrs. v CTF Hotel Co., 242 AD2d 643, 644).

The court further erred in failing to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action, predicated upon the breach of express and implied warranties of fitness of use for a particular purpose. Each of the invoices reflecting the sale of paint and paint thinner by defendant to plaintiff contained a conspicuous and thus effective disclaimer of all warranties, including that of fitness for a particular purpose (see, UCC 1-201 [10]; 2-316 [2]; Travelers Ins. Cos. v Howard E. Conrad, Inc., 233 AD2d 890, 891).

Further, even assuming, arguendo, the existence of an issue [976]*976of fact relative to any negligence or breach of warranty cause of action, we conclude that defendant established that no alleged defect in the paint or paint thinner sold by defendant to plaintiff was a proximate cause of the rusting of the bridges, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in that regard (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Naftilos Painting, Inc. (plaintiff), the plaintiff in action No. 3, was the painting subcontractor in connection with a renovation of the south Grand Island bridges. The defendant in that action, The Valspar Corporation (defendant), supplied the paint specified for the project by the owner of the bridges, the New York State Thruway Authority. After the project was completed, extensive rusting appeared on the bridges. The general contractor required plaintiff to remediate the rusting at its own expense.

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. None of the negligence and/or negligent misrepresentation causes of action is predicated upon “the violation of a legal duty independent of that created by the contract” (Scott v KeyCorp, 247 AD2d 722, 725), and thus the first three causes of action of the complaint should have been dismissed (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389-390; Scott v KeyCorp, supra, at 725; Alamo Contract Bldrs. v CTF Hotel Co., 242 AD2d 643, 644).

The court further erred in failing to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action, predicated upon the breach of express and implied warranties of fitness of use for a particular purpose. Each of the invoices reflecting the sale of paint and paint thinner by defendant to plaintiff contained a conspicuous and thus effective disclaimer of all warranties, including that of fitness for a particular purpose (see, UCC 1-201 [10]; 2-316 [2]; Travelers Ins. Cos. v Howard E. Conrad, Inc., 233 AD2d 890, 891).

Further, even assuming, arguendo, the existence of an issue [976]*976of fact relative to any negligence or breach of warranty cause of action, we conclude that defendant established that no alleged defect in the paint or paint thinner sold by defendant to plaintiff was a proximate cause of the rusting of the bridges, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in that regard (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 975, 713 N.Y.S.2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naftilos-painting-inc-v-cianbro-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack