You are here: / / COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL SHOULD...
,

COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE COMPLAINTS STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined two class action complaints alleging defendants supplied heating oil of lesser quality than that called for by the contracts should not have been dismissed. The complaints alleged waste oil had been mixed with the No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil which was ordered. Certain detrimental effects of burning the mixed fuel were alleged. The First Department held that the “no injury” products liability cases relied upon by the motion court did not apply. Rather the case presented breach of contract/warranty issues:

Plaintiffs essentially allege that, consistent with the ASTM specifications, as well as common commercial usage, and pursuant to the UCC, customers purchasing goods described as No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil are entitled to presume that they are receiving 100% fuel oil of the specified grade, and not a product consisting of a blend of No. 4 or No. 6 fuel oil with some other types of oil that do not meet the criteria of those ASTM specifications. * * *

Under UCC 2-714(2), the measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of the goods warranted … . Since we must infer from the complaint that plaintiffs received nonconforming oil deliveries of lesser value than those they contracted and paid for, causes of action for breach of contract and breach of warranty — including plaintiffs' damages — are stated in each action. BMW Group, LLC v Castle Oil Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01790, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)/UCC (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)/FUEL OIL  (COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY)

You might also like
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITHOUT FATHER’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE.
SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS BEING THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION BECAUSE SHE WAS A REGISTERED NURSE, NOT A DOCTOR; THE REGISTERED NURSE WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON FALL PREVENTION; AN EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS SPEAK TO THE WEIGHT OF THE OPINION EVIDENCE, NOT ADMISSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​
A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST 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

SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH... UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.