Citation Numbers: 158 A.D.2d 363, 551 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1391
Filed Date: 2/15/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
We agree with the trial court that, as a matter of law, plaintiff does not have a cause of action for breach of warranty, express or implied. If the contract in issue is deemed one essentially for the sale of goods, a cause of action for breach of warranty would be barred by the four-year Statute of Limitations (UCC 2-725); if, on the other hand, it is deemed one essentially for the provision of a service, a cause of action for breach of warranty cannot lie (Milau Assocs. v North Ave. Dev. Corp., 42 NY2d 482). Nevertheless, we reverse and remand for a new trial since the question of whether defendant dealt fairly with plaintiff should have been submitted to the jury. Evidence at the trial tended to show that the Sykes floor tiles specified in the contract were selected because recommended to plaintiff by defendant, that plaintiff relied on defendant’s judgment and skill as a flooring contractor in accepting this recommendation, and that defendant knew that plaintiff was so relying on it. The evidence also tended to show that during the course of the installation of the floor defen