Butler v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc., 1
| Decision Date | 11 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 122 A.D.2d 559,505 N.Y.S.2d 288 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | BUTLER and all others, Appellants, v. CALDWELL & COOK, INC., Respondent. Lynn E. CICON and all others, Appellants, v. CALDWELL & COOK, INC., Respondent. Donna J. MEISENZAHL and all others, Appellants, v. RYAN HOMES, INC. and Lancaster Homes, Inc., Respondents. RYAN HOMES, INC., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, et al., Third Party Defendants-Respondents. Richard R. FALBO, Mary Falbo and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. DOMUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Respondents and Third Party Plaintiffs- Respondents. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., Third Party Defendants-Respondents. Appeal |
Shoolman Law Firm, P.C. by Carl Schoolman, Rochester, for appellants.
Easton & Bittker by William Easton, Rochester, for respondent Caldwell & Cook, Inc.
Faraci, Guadagnino, Lange & Johns by Joseph Regan, Rochester, for respondents Ryan Homes & Lancaster Homes, Inc.
Harter, Secrest & Emery by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent U.S. Gypsum Co.
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent National Gypsum Co.
Goldstein, Goldman, Kessler & Underberg by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent GAF Corp.
Connors, Corcoran, Hall & Meyering by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent Certainteed Corp.
Saperston, Day, Lustig, Gallick, Kirschner & Gaglione, P.C. by Eileen Buholtz, Buffalo, for respondent Weyerhaueser Co.
Osborn, Reed, Van De Vate & Burke by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent Celotex Corp.
Culley, Marks, Corbett, Tanenbaum, Reifsteck & Potter by Eileen Buholtz, Rochester, for respondent Boise-Cascade Corp. Sutton, Deleeuw, Clark & Darcy by Frank Monfredo, Rochester, for respondent Domus Development Corp. & Domus Homes, Inc.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, BOOMER, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Plaintiffs in these class actions sue the builders of their homes for damages sustained as the result of defective siding and sheathing. Special Term properly dismissed the causes of action sounding in negligence and strict products liability. Neither cause of action lies for recovery of "economic loss" due to product failure (see, Hemming v. Certainteed Corp., 97 A.D.2d 976, 468 N.Y.S.2d 789, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 758; Queensbury Union Free School Dist. v. Walter Corp., 94 A.D.2d 834, 463 N.Y.S.2d 114).
The causes of action labeled "Express Warranty" were properly dismissed because of the failure to state the terms of the warranties and plaintiffs' reliance thereon, and because they are duplicative of the later causes of action labeled "Common Law Express Warranties".
The causes of action based on implied warranties of fitness for use were properly dismissed. Any cause of action plaintiffs may have based upon an implied warranty arising from the sale of a new home is encompassed in the later causes of action labeled "Implied Warranties--Workmanlike Construction and Habitability".
The causes of action alleging deceptive business practices (General Business Law §§ 349[h], 350-d[3] ) were properly dismissed because of the failure to state facts showing that plaintiffs relied to their detriment upon deceptive practices occurring after the effective date of the statute (see, Burns v. Volkswagen of Amer., 118 Misc.2d 289, 460 N.Y.S.2d 410, affd. 97 A.D.2d 977, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1017; Estruch v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 97 A.D.2d 977, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1023, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 604, 473 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 462 N.E.2d 155).
The causes of action based upon breach of implied warranties of workmanlike construction and habitability were properly dismissed as to those plaintiffs who lacked privity with defendants (see, Miller v. General Motors Corp., 99 A.D.2d 454, 471 N.Y.S.2d 280, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1081, 489 N.Y.S.2d 904, 479 N.E.2d 249; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lempke v. Dagenais
...purchasers, finding privity necessary. See, e.g., Arvai v. Shaw, 289 S.C. 161, 345 S.E.2d 715 (1986); Butler v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 559, 505 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1986); Dunant v. Wilmock, Inc., 176 Ga.App. 48, 335 S.E.2d 162 (1985); Fretschel v. Burbank, 351 N.W.2d 403 (Minn.App.1984......
-
Key Intern. Mfg., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc.
...in negligence" (Lake Placid Club Attached Lodges v. Elizabethtown Bldrs., supra, at 162, 521 N.Y.S.2d 165, citing Butler v. Caldwell & Cook, 122 A.D.2d 559, 505 N.Y.S.2d 288; Burnell v. Morning Star Homes, 114 A.D.2d 657, 659, 494 N.Y.S.2d 488; Hemming v. Certainteed Corp., 97 A.D.2d 976, 4......
-
Speight v. Walters Development Co., Ltd.
...John H. Armbruster & Co. v. Hayden Co.—Builder Developer, Inc., 622 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.Ct.App. 1981); Butler v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 559, 505 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1986); Brown v. Fowler, 279 N.W.2d 907 (S.D.1979); Briggs v. Riversound Ltd. P'ship, 942 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Schafi......
-
CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Pub. Co.
...Co. v. Pilmer Edsel, Inc., 14 N.Y.2d 617, 621, 249 N.Y.S.2d 170, 198 N.E.2d 365 [Burke, J., dissenting]; see, Butler v. Caldwell & Cook, 122 A.D.2d 559, 560, 505 N.Y.S.2d 288, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 709, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 538 N.E.2d 356, appeal dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 849, 537 N.Y.S.2d 483, 534 ......