Saxton v. Pets Warehouse, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Saxton v. Pets Warehouse, Inc.

180 Misc. 2d 377, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 781, 691 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 243

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 180 Misc. 2d 377 (Saxton v. Pets Warehouse, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saxton v. Pets Warehouse, Inc., 180 Misc. 2d 377, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 781, 691 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[378]*378OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover damages sustained by reason of the fact that the dog sold to her by defendant was not healthy and died soon after purchase. It is apparent from a review of the determination of the lower court that the court was of the opinion that the animal was unfit for purchase at the time of sale and that plaintiff acted reasonably in her care of the animal. While such a determination is supported by the evidence, the award by the lower court included damages for certain treatments which appear to be redundant, such as tests for the parvo virus. Further, the court improperly awarded plaintiff the purchase price of the animal when in fact she had been reimbursed for same by means of an insurance policy obtained through defendant. Under the circumstances, the matter should be remanded to the court below for a new trial limited to the issue of damages which include any sales tax paid by plaintiff which was not reimbursed by the insurance policy and the reasonable cost of veterinarian expenses incurred by plaintiff in the treatment of the animal.

We note that plaintiff is not limited to the remedies provided by subdivision (1) of section 753 of the General Business Law as the animal came within the definition of “goods” as set forth in UCC 2-105 and defendant was a “merchant” within the meaning of UCC 2-104 (1) (see, General Business Law § 753 [5]). Accordingly, plaintiff could recover damages pursuant to UCC 2-714 on the theory that defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability (see, UCC 2-314; Sacco v Tate, 175 Misc 2d 901).

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Levitt, JJ., concur.

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

[378]*378OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action to recover damages sustained by reason of the fact that the dog sold to her by defendant was not healthy and died soon after purchase. It is apparent from a review of the determination of the lower court that the court was of the opinion that the animal was unfit for purchase at the time of sale and that plaintiff acted reasonably in her care of the animal. While such a determination is supported by the evidence, the award by the lower court included damages for certain treatments which appear to be redundant, such as tests for the parvo virus. Further, the court improperly awarded plaintiff the purchase price of the animal when in fact she had been reimbursed for same by means of an insurance policy obtained through defendant. Under the circumstances, the matter should be remanded to the court below for a new trial limited to the issue of damages which include any sales tax paid by plaintiff which was not reimbursed by the insurance policy and the reasonable cost of veterinarian expenses incurred by plaintiff in the treatment of the animal.

We note that plaintiff is not limited to the remedies provided by subdivision (1) of section 753 of the General Business Law as the animal came within the definition of “goods” as set forth in UCC 2-105 and defendant was a “merchant” within the meaning of UCC 2-104 (1) (see, General Business Law § 753 [5]). Accordingly, plaintiff could recover damages pursuant to UCC 2-714 on the theory that defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability (see, UCC 2-314; Sacco v Tate, 175 Misc 2d 901).

DiPaola, P. J., Ingrassia and Levitt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Misc. 2d 377, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 781, 691 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-v-pets-warehouse-inc-nyappterm-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack