Munn v. Security Controls, Inc., (New York Corp.)
| Decision Date | 08 April 1965 |
| Citation | 23 A.D.2d 813,258 N.Y.S.2d 475 |
| Parties | Arthur L. MUNN, Respondent, v. SECURITY CONTROLS, INC., (NEW YORK CORP.), Defendant, Security Controls, Inc., Delaware Corp.), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McDonough, Boasberg, McDonough & Beltz, Buffalo, for respondent (Charles J. McDonough, Buffalo, of counsel).
Ohlin, Damon, Morey, Sawyer & Moot, Buffalo, for appellant (Roy P. Ohlin, Buffalo, of counsel).
Smith, Murphy & Schoepperle, Buffalo, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, NOONAN, and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
In 1956 appellant (a Delaware corporation) sold to plaintiff's employer an electronic safety device. Plaintiff claims that in 1961 he was injured as a result of the malfunctioning of the device. This action was commenced in July, 1962 against the non-appealing defendant (a New York corporation). The original complaint alleged two causes of action--one for common law negligence and the second for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness of the device. In December, 1963 plaintiff obtained an order permitting service of an amended and supplemental complaint against appellant. This pleading re-alleged the same two causes of action. Appellant moved to dismiss the second cause upon the ground, among others, that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213). It was error to deny the motion. A cause of action for breach of warranty of quality and fitness accrues at the time of sale and may not be 'stretched by implication into a specific promise enforcible' at some future date beyond the period of six years. (Cf. Citizens Utilities Co. v. American Locomotive Co., 11 N.Y.2d 409, 417, 230 N.Y.S.2d 194, 198, 184 N.E.2d 171, 174). We agree, however, with the conclusion of Special Term that the court acquired personal jurisdiction of appellant. While the latter in June, 1958 executed a surrender of its authority to do business in this State (Gen.Corp.Law, § 216), it thereafter, by the provision of paragraph 2 of the same section, continued to be amenable to process 'in an action upon any liability or obligation incurred within this state before the filing of such certificate'. We do not attempt to pass upon all facets of the remaining cause of action for negligence but it is alleged in the amended pleading that appellant was negligent in the design, construction, and installation of the safety control system. This occurred before the date of app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara
...sale, and a cause of action for the breach of such a warranty accrued at the time of sale or delivery. Munn v. Security Controls, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 813, 258 N.Y.S.2d 475 (4th Dept. 1965); Kakargo v. Grange Silo Co., 11 A.D.2d 796, 204 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (2d Dept. 1960), mot. for lv. to app. den., ......
-
Cruz v. General Motors Corporation
...714, 716, 188 N.E.2d 142, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 808, 83 S.Ct. 1697, 10 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1963); Munn v. Security Controls, Inc. (New York Corp.), 23 A.D. 2d 813, 258 N.Y.S.2d 475 (1965). However, for present purposes, the difference in dates is purely academic; for convenience, the date of the......
-
Sevits v. McKiernan-Terry Corporation (New Jersey)
...Thus, the complaint is based upon claims for liability "incurred" before September 20, 1962. Munn v. Security Controls, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 813, 258 N.Y.S. 2d 475 (4th Dept. 1965). The next question is whether defendant's liability, if any, was "incurred" in New York. I hold that it was not. Th......
-
Ibach v. Grant Donaldson Service, Inc.
...it (Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chem. Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 212, 215, 237 N.Y.S.2d 714, 715, 188 N.E.2d 142, 143; Munn v. Security Controls, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 813, 258 N.Y.S.2d 475). In Mendel the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (manufacturer) had manufactured, sold and installed in 1958 plate glass......