You are here: / / UCC Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applied to Breach of Warranty Cause...
, ,

UCC Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applied to Breach of Warranty Cause of Action​

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that a guarantee which stated “if any defects in manufacturing, materials or workmanship occurred within 10 years the product would be repaired, replaced or purchase price refunded” was not a warranty which extended to future performance within the meaning of UCC 2-725[2]. The four-year UCC statute of limitations therefore applied to the warranty cause of action.  In addition, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the “fraudulent concealment” cause of action.  The Court’s discussion of the law concerning those two issues follows:

A cause of action alleging breach of warranty is governed by a four-year statute of limitations (see UCC 2-725[1]…). Generally, a breach of warranty action accrues “when tender of delivery is made” (UCC 2-725[2];…). As an exception to this general rule, the UCC provides that “where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance,” then “the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2];…). “A warranty of future performance is one that guarantees that the product will work for a specified period of time”… . However, “[w]arranties to repair or replace [a] product in the event that it fails to perform, without any promise of performance, do not constitute warranties of future performance” … . * * *

In pleading a cause of action to recover damages for fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b];…) A cause of action sounding in fraud must allege that the defendant knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact for the purpose of inducing another party to rely upon it, and that the other party justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation or concealment to his or her own detriment…. “A cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent concealment requires, in addition to allegations of scienter, reliance, and damages, an allegation that the defendant had a duty to disclose material information and that it failed to do so”… Schwatka v Super Millwork, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03470, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HOTEL PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; HOWEVER THE HOTEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED 100% OF THE FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE 2011 ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE NEVER STARTED RUNNING (SECOND DEPT).
HERE FAMILY COURT HAD THE INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS THE CHILD’S FATHER; RESPONDENT WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING PATERNITY BASED ON HIS POSITION IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT START PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Contribution and Indemnification Unavailable in Breach of Contract Action; Notice... SORA Applies to Out of State Sex Offense