Craig v. American Dist. Tel. Co.
| Citation | 91 Misc.2d 1063,399 N.Y.S.2d 164 |
| Parties | , 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 45 David L. CRAIG, d/b/a Craig Audio Laboratory, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH CO., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. "(I)t is clear that, under the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, the statements in pleadings are still required to be factual, that is, the essential facts required to give 'notice' must be stated." (Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 63, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121, 125.) "(N)otice of the transactions and occurrences constituting the cause of action is required, and a pleading consisting solely of conclusory allegations will be no more acceptable under the present practice than it was formerly." (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 3013.03.)
The complaint consists mainly of conclusory allegations sounding in breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for use, and fitness for specific use, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and intentional tort.
The only facts we can glean from the complaint are: The plaintiff purchased from the defendant, American District Telegraph Co. (ADT), a burglar alarm system under a written contract which is attached to the complaint. The written contract required ADT install and maintain upon plaintiff's premises a security alarm system, including wires necessary to transmit signals from the plaintiff's premises to ADT's office. The entire system was to remain the personal property of ADT. ADT, in receipt of a burglar alarm transmitted from plaintiff's premises, was to relay the alarm promptly to the police department. The defendant's employees made certain statements to the plaintiff, including the following: ADT was a very reliable firm which had been in business for several years, had an excellent staff and could render better service than any local firm, and that their systems were the best for the plaintiff's business and were foolproof, and were substantial deterrents to burglaries. After installation of the system, the plaintiff's premises were burglarized.
The complaint contains no allegation of fact stating in what respect any warranty was breached nor does it contain a statement of fact indicating that any breach was the proximate cause of the burglary. We are not told, for instance, whether there was a defect in the burglary alarm equipment so that the alarm failed to sound, or, if the alarm did sound, whether the defendant failed to transmit the alarm to the police, or, if the alarm was transmitted to the police, whether the police failed to respond. For all we know the police were alerted promptly, but the burglars acted too fast to be caught.
There are no allegations of fact supporting any intentional or grossly negligent acts or failures to act on the part of the defendant.
There are no allegations of fact supporting a cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DL Lee & Sons v. ADT Sec. Systems, Mid-South
...The contract between ADT and Lee expressly provides that the system is to remain property of ADT. Craig v. American District Telegraph Co., 91 Misc.2d 1063, 399 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 (1977). The parties were able to choose between two options when characterizing the transaction, (1) "Direct Sal......
-
Winckel v. Atlantic Rentals & Sales, Inc.
...§ 72; Farnsworth, Implied Warranties of Quality in Non-Sales Cases, 57 Colum L Rev 653 [1957]; see also, Craig v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 91 Misc.2d 1063, 399 N.Y.S.2d 164; 1 Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 7:05). In addition to this common law of implied warranty, New York's sta......
-
Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services Co.
...Lobianco does not support the conclusion that the lease agreement in this case was a "sale." Accord Craig v. American District Telegraph, 91 Misc.2d 1063, 399 N.Y.S.2d 164 (1977) (no "sale" occurred where alarm system which was installed in plaintiff's premises remained the property of the ......
-
Warren W. Fane, Inc. v. Tri-State Diesel, Inc.
...actually breached its obligations under the warranty. See Promuto, 44 F.Supp.2d at 642; see also, Craig v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 91 Misc. 2d 1063, 1065, 399 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 (Monroe Cty., 1977) (granting judgment on express warranty claim because "[t]he complaint contains no allegation ......