Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1973 |
| Citation | 73 Misc.2d 78,341 N.Y.S.2d 364 |
| Parties | , 12 UCC Rep.Serv. 297 Edward REISS, as Assignee of Plastic Extruded Products Co., Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC STEEL POOL CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Norman Bluestone, P.C., Brooklyn, for plaintiff.
Poskanzer, Muffson, Hessberg & Blumberg, Albany, for defendant (Thomas E. Dolin, Albany, of counsel).
This is a motion on behalf of the Defendant for summary judgment.
The action is one to recover for goods sold and delivered. Apparently the goods involved were sold and delivered to Defendant between February 26, 1965 and May 25, 1965. The terms of payment were 'Net 30 days, F.O.B. Shipping Point'. The instant action was commenced on November 25, 1969.
The Defendant now moves on the ground that the action is time barred by Uniform Commercial Code § 2--725 which provides a four year statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposes the motion and alleges that the six year statute of limitations of CPLR 213 is applicable.
Uniform Commercial Code § 2--725(1) provides:
'An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. * * *.'
CPLR 213 provides:
'The following actions must be commenced within six years:
2. An action upon a contractual obligation or liability express or implied, except as provided in article 2 of the uniform commercial code.'
In the Practice Commentaries to CPLR 213 contained in McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 7B, it is stated in C213:2 at page 326 as follows:
(Italics supplied.)
From the foregoing it is apparent that the four year statute of limitations is applicable in the instant case and, therefore, the action is time barred.
For that reason, the motion is granted dismissing the complaint.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor
...v. Collegedale Distributors, 355 So.2d 79 (Miss.1978); Payne v. Far-Mar-Co., 612 S.W.2d 54 (Mo.App.1981); Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1973); May Co. v. Trusnik, 54 Ohio App.2d 71, 375 N.E.2d 72, 8 Ohio Op.3d 97 (1977); Sesow v. Swearingen, 552 P.2d 70......
-
Burton v. Artery Co., Inc., 82
...v. Stewart, 42 Cal.App.2d Supp. 1, 116 Cal.Rptr. 631, 632 (App.Dept., Super.Ct., Los Angeles Co. 1974); Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364, 365 (S.Ct., Spec.Term, Albany Co.1973); and Wilson v. Browning Arms Company, 501 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.Civ.App., 14th Di......
-
Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co.
...over an older, more general statute of limitations. Payne v. Far-Mar-Co., Mo., 612 S.W.2d 54 (1981); Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1973). That rule establishes § 70A-2-725 as the applicable statute of limitations for the cause of action alleged in this ......
-
Kemp v. Hinkson
... ... Court distinguished that matter from Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 295 N.Y.S.2d 752 ... ...