Arell's Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Shapiro v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Bolm v. Triumph Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1973
- 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.