Steckmar Nat. Realty and Inv. Corp., Ltd. v. J I Case Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1979
• Parties: STECKMAR NATIONAL REALTY AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION, LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. J I CASE COMPANY, West End Motors and Franklyn Akey d/b/a West End Motors, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 946

415 N.Y.S.2d 946

99 Misc.2d 212

STECKMAR NATIONAL REALTY AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. J I CASE COMPANY, West End Motors and Franklyn Akey d/b/a West End Motors, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

April 2, 1979.

Cole & Deitz, New York City, for plaintiff.

Townley & Updike, New York City, for defendants.

NATHANIEL T. HELMAN, Justice:

This motion is brought by the defendant, J I Case Company for an order granting summary judgment against the plaintiff, Steckmar National Realty and Investment Corp.

On April 30, 1970, the J I Case Company, a manufacturer of cranes sold a crane to Frank Akey, doing business as West End Motors. On April 23, 1974 plaintiff purchased the same crane from one Akey. Prior to plaintiff's acquisition of the crane, Akey had used it for 2,000 hours, and in selling same to plaintiff the price was reduced by approximately one half of its original cost.

In or about June 1974 and before plaintiff ever operated the crane, a crack in the underside of the base was discovered rendering the crane inoperable. Plaintiff brings this action to recover its economic loss; to wit, the cost of repair and loss of profits resulting from the inability to make use of the defective crane. Plaintiff's first theory of liability is in breach of warranty. A cause of action for breach of warranty is a contractual remedy, one which seeks to provide the parties with the benefits of their bargain. Inasmuch as there is no contractual relationship between the parties there is no warranty either express or implied under the U.C.C. While the legislature has extended the protection of warranty to third parties, if it is reasonable to expect that such persons may use, consume or be affected by the goods, that protection is afforded only to natural persons who suffer personal injuries. (See U.C.C. 2-318.)

In the case of Randy Knitwear v. American Cyanamid Co., 11 N.Y.2d 5, 226 N.Y.S.2d 363, 181 N.E.2d 399, the Court of Appeals further extended the warranty protection to a sub-purchaser who justifiably relied upon representations made by the manufacturer to the public through advertising and in labels tagged to the goods themselves. In Randy, supra, the sub-purchaser acquired unused material from its vendor that was manufactured by Cyanamid, the defendant in that action. Each piece of fabric purchased was tagged with the manufacturers label that bore the legend "will not shrink." Moreover, in reliance upon Cyanamid's representation, the sub-purchaser paid an additional charge for the cost involved in rendering the fabric shrink proof.

Unlike the Cyanamid case, the plaintiff at bar cannot show justifiable reliance. The crane was four years old at the time plaintiff purchased it from its vendor and was never used by plaintiff it caused no personal injury or damage to other property. In addition, plaintiff purchased the crane "as is." In every sense, the crane was used equipment and not new equipment, and the buyer assumed risks based on the prior use of the crane.

Finally, plaintiff's first cause of action based on breach of warranty is barred by the statute of limitations. (See U.C.C. 2-725.) The crane was delivered and signed over to Akey on April 30, 1970 and this action was not commenced...