Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1992–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Denny v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any 2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any | 3 | 5 |
Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc.green2 sentences2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any 2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any | 2 | 2 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2007Bejo met its initial burden by establishing that it had no contract with plaintiff and that Seedway was only its authorized dealer and was not its agent, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
Weiner v. Mager & Throne, Inc.green1 sentence2006(Varone v Coloreo, 22 Misc 2d 1085, 1088 [I960]; O’Hare v Petersen, 174 Misc 481, 485 [1940]; Weiner v Mager & Throne, Inc., 167 Misc 338, 340-341 [1938].) That line of cases seems to end, coincidently, around the time that the relevant portions of the Personal Property Law were repealed by the Uniform Commercial Code in 1964. | 1 | 1 |
O'Hare v. Petersengreen1 sentence2006(Varone v Coloreo, 22 Misc 2d 1085, 1088 [I960]; O’Hare v Petersen, 174 Misc 481, 485 [1940]; Weiner v Mager & Throne, Inc., 167 Misc 338, 340-341 [1938].) That line of cases seems to end, coincidently, around the time that the relevant portions of the Personal Property Law were repealed by the Uniform Commercial Code in 1964. | 1 | 1 |
Varone v. Calarcogreen1 sentence2006(Varone v Coloreo, 22 Misc 2d 1085, 1088 [I960]; O’Hare v Petersen, 174 Misc 481, 485 [1940]; Weiner v Mager & Throne, Inc., 167 Misc 338, 340-341 [1938].) That line of cases seems to end, coincidently, around the time that the relevant portions of the Personal Property Law were repealed by the Uniform Commercial Code in 1964. | 1 | 1 |
Pritzakis v. Sbarragreen1 sentence1997Although discovery has been completed, there is no evidence that the delay in seeking to interpose the breach of implied warranty claim would "hinder” future discovery or preclude defendants from "taking some measure in support of [their] position” (Pritzakis v Sbarra, supra, at 799). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saratoga Spa & Bath, Inc. v. Beeche Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any 2024To establish that a product is defective for purposes of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was not "reasonably fit for [its] intended purpose" ( id . at 330, 656 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see UCC 2—314[2][c]), an inquiry that "focuses on the expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manners" ( Denny v. Ford Motor Co ., 87 NY2d 248 , 258—259, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250 , 662 N.E.2d 730 [1995])." ( Wojcik v. Empire Forklift, Inc ., 14 AD3d 63 [3rd Dept. 2004].) Plaintiff fails to allege any | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Garcia v. Woodgrove Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010The “defect” element in a breach of implied warranty claim under the UCC is premised on contract principles and focuses on the purchaser’s disappointed expectations, while the “defect” element in a strict products liability claim is based upon tort principles concerned with social policy and risk allocation (see Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d at 256-259 ; Garcia v Woodgrove Sales, Inc., 65 AD3d at 516-517 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
green
1 sentence2006Finally, defendant does not address on appeal the court’s denial of that part of its motion with respect to the breach of implied warranty claim and thus is deemed to have abandoned any contention with respect thereto (see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984 [1994]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gordon v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2000That branch of defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action against defendants for breach of implied warranty under the Warranty Act is granted as to Chrysler and denied as to Adzam. 4 New York does not recognize a breach of implied warranty claim in which economic losses have been sustained absent privity of contract (see, Gordon v Ford Motor Co., 239 AD2d 156 [1st Dept 1997]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bocre Leasing Corp. v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1998Because plaintiffs allege losses of only an economic nature resulting from the explosion, we agree with defendant that, under the Court of Appeals’ 1995 decision in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp. ( 84 NY2d 685 ), plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain an action for negligence and strict liability in the absence of allegations of bodily injury or damage to property other than the allegedly defective product. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Micallef v. Miehle Co.
green
1 sentence1992The basis for plaintiffs’ claim is tortious conduct and, therefore, it "is more correctly treated under the theory of strict products liability” (Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 387 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.