Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1967 |
| Citation | 57 Misc.2d 45,291 N.Y.S.2d 94 |
| Parties | , 5 UCC Rep.Serv. 733 Cecile MENDEL and Max Mendel, Plaintiffs, v. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY and Central Trust Company, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This action arises out of an accident which occurred October 29, 1965 in the premises of the defendant bank where the plaintiff, Cecile Mendel, sustained injuries allegedly by reason of a faulty glass door installed by defendant Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company in October of 1958. This motion by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company seeks to dismiss the third and fourth breach of warranty causes of action of plaintiffs' complaint against it, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (Subd. (a), par. 5) (statute of limitations) and CPLR 3211 (subd. (a), par. 7) (the pleading fails to state a cause of action).
Plaintiffs contend that the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (§ 2--725) are not applicable to the alleged breaches of warranty, but that 'strict tort liability', having been embraced in New York State (Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 432, 240 N.Y.S.2d 592, 191 N.E.2d 81), controls the third and fourth causes of action here.
It seems to me that the Uniform Commercial Code, as of September 27, 1964, specifically imposes a four-year statute of limitations in cases like this from the date the breach of warranty arises. The breach commences from the date of sale or delivery of the material which is the subject of the breach. In this case the alleged faulty doors were delivered and installed in October of 1958. However, as of the date of this accident, to-wit, October 29, 1965, the four-year statute cannot be controlling. Section 2--725 of the Uniform Commercial Code specifically provides: 'This section does not * * * apply to causes of action which have accrued before this Act becomes effective'. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213, subd. 1) applies here to a breach of warranty, express or implied.
Strict tort liability in my view extends the implied warranty of a manufacturer for an article to the persons whose use of the article is contemplated, regardless of the fact that there is no privity between such persons and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. General Motors Corporation
...L.Ed.2d 1032 (1963); Blessington v. McCrory's Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140, 111 N.E.2d 421, 37 A.L.R. 2d 698 (1953); Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 57 Misc.2d 45, 291 N.Y. S.2d 94 (Sup.Ct.1967), aff'd mem., 29 A.D.2d 918, 290 N.Y.S.2d 186 6 N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214(5) (McKinney 1963). 7 50 U......
-
Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co.
...Dynamics, 425 F.Supp. 688 (S.D.Tex.1977). New York, for a time, delayed this inevitable conclusion with Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 57 Misc.2d 45, 291 N.Y.S.2d 94 (1967). In that case the plaintiff was injured when a plate glass door, manufactured by the defendant, shattered as pl......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Tate
...1011, 325 N.Y.S.2d 601 (1971); Moody v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 324 F.Supp. 844 (D.C., Ga., 1971). See also, Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 57 Misc.2d 45, 291 N.Y.S.2d 94 (1967). This conclusion is also consistent with pre-code law in Arkansas. Peterson v. Brown, 216 Ark. 709, 227 S.W.......
-
Everhart v. Rich's, Inc., 46959
...v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 413 Pa. 415, 197 A.2d 612; Rufo v. Bastian-Blessing Co., 417 Pa. 107, 207 A.2d 823; Mendel v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 57 Misc.2d 45, 291 N.Y.S.2d 94; Val Decker Packing Co. v. Corn Products Sales Co., 411 F.2d 850 (6th Cir.); Wolverine Insurance Co. v. Tower I......