Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arell's Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.

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

Decided February 1, 1991Published

1DissentBalio, J.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs cause of action for breach of implied warranty must be dismissed on the ground that it is time-barred and that it was error to dismiss Honeywell’s third-party cause of action for implied indemnification based upon breach of warranty. I am compelled to dissent, however, because the majority has erroneously determined that the physical damage to plaintiffs property constitutes "economic loss”.

Rochester Central Alarms, Inc., operated a burglary alarm protection service and maintained a central station so it could simultaneously serve…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Shapiro v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
  4. Bolm v. Triumph Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
  5. Cayuga Harvester, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API