Copeland v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum: Special Term properly denied plaintiffs’ motions for permission to amend their complaints to assert causes of action for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and deceptive business practices. Because plaintiffs, in their proposed complaint, have not alleged that they were in privity with defendants, they may not recover on a claim of breach of implied warranty (see, Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto. Serv., 89 AD2d 785, affd 58 NY2d 993; see also, Miller v General Motors Corp., 99 AD2d 454, affd 64 NY2d 1081).
The proposed cause of action for breach of express warranty…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Arthur Jaffee Associates v. Bilsco Auto Service, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Hutchins v. GorlickiNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Hemming v. Certainteed Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Shields v. School of Law of Hofstra UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Lupinski v. Village of IlionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gonzalez v. Rutherford Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- Paretti v. Cavalier Label Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988
- Davis v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Valley Cadillac Corp. v. DickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Coffey v. United States Gypsum Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.