Security Leasing Co. v. Foremost Fountains, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Security Leasing Co. v. Foremost Fountains, Inc.

41 Misc. 2d 84, 245 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1574

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 3, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Misc. 2d 84 (Security Leasing Co. v. Foremost Fountains, 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

Security Leasing Co. v. Foremost Fountains, Inc., 41 Misc. 2d 84, 245 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Even if privity was required to entitle the plaintiff The House of Imperial Chemists, Inc. (Imperial) to recover, there were triable issues whether Imperial had not contracted with the defendant before the plaintiff Security Leasing Company (Security) gave the defendant the purchase order of December 30, 1960 and, if so, whether the purchase o.rder so given constituted a novation. Imperial’s relation to the trans[85]*85action was close and direct enough to create a triable issue whether, in all the circumstances, Imperial was by the December 30, 1960 purchase order, excluded from participation to such extent as to deprive it of the right to recover for breach of warranty in respect of equipment purchased for it and leased to it for its use. The transaction was sufficiently equivocal to require analysis and resolution by trial, rather than by order for summary judgment of dismissal.

The growing relaxation by the courts of New York of the requirement of privity in actions for breach of warranty, not alone in those to recover for personal injuries (Greenberg v. Lorenz, 9 N Y 2d 195; Addeo v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., 39 Misc 2d 474), but when the suit is to recover damages of the more conventional type as well (Randy Knitwear v. American Cyanamid Co., 11 N Y 2d 5) justifies the view that if Imperial proves the breach of warranty asserted and that it has been damaged thereby, it may not be denied recovery for lack of privity between it and the defendant. The court may anticipate such ruling, just as a Federal court did in a somewhat analogous situation. (Deveny v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 319 F. 2d 124.) If it becomes necessary to determine the possible affect of lack of privity on Imperial’s right of recovery, the question should be resolved only after trial, when the facts have been established upon a full record and not summarily.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Gold and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Even if privity was required to entitle the plaintiff The House of Imperial Chemists, Inc. (Imperial) to recover, there were triable issues whether Imperial had not contracted with the defendant before the plaintiff Security Leasing Company (Security) gave the defendant the purchase order of December 30, 1960 and, if so, whether the purchase o.rder so given constituted a novation. Imperial’s relation to the trans[85]*85action was close and direct enough to create a triable issue whether, in all the circumstances, Imperial was by the December 30, 1960 purchase order, excluded from participation to such extent as to deprive it of the right to recover for breach of warranty in respect of equipment purchased for it and leased to it for its use. The transaction was sufficiently equivocal to require analysis and resolution by trial, rather than by order for summary judgment of dismissal.

The growing relaxation by the courts of New York of the requirement of privity in actions for breach of warranty, not alone in those to recover for personal injuries (Greenberg v. Lorenz, 9 N Y 2d 195; Addeo v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., 39 Misc 2d 474), but when the suit is to recover damages of the more conventional type as well (Randy Knitwear v. American Cyanamid Co., 11 N Y 2d 5) justifies the view that if Imperial proves the breach of warranty asserted and that it has been damaged thereby, it may not be denied recovery for lack of privity between it and the defendant. The court may anticipate such ruling, just as a Federal court did in a somewhat analogous situation. (Deveny v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 319 F. 2d 124.) If it becomes necessary to determine the possible affect of lack of privity on Imperial’s right of recovery, the question should be resolved only after trial, when the facts have been established upon a full record and not summarily.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Gold and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Misc. 2d 84, 245 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-leasing-co-v-foremost-fountains-inc-nyappterm-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack