From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter v. Cain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 4, 1985
112 A.D.2d 2 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 4, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Genesee County, Pine, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Green, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendants' motion to dismiss the second cause of action for breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The conveyance from defendants to plaintiffs was pursuant to a contract for the sale of a completed house in which defendants had resided for approximately three years. Cases such as De Roche v. Dame ( 75 A.D.2d 384, lv dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 821) and Centrella v. Holland Constr. Corp. ( 82 Misc.2d 537), where newly constructed residences were purchased from the owners-builders, do not apply. Any implied warranty is barred by Real Property Law § 251 (see, Spano v. Perry, 59 Misc.2d 1062).


Summaries of

Carter v. Cain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 4, 1985
112 A.D.2d 2 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Carter v. Cain

Case Details

Full title:JAMES T. CARTER et al., Respondents, v. RICHARD C. CAIN et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 2 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Copland v. Nathaniel

There is no implied warranty of habitability in the sale of a previously owned home. (Real Property Law §…

Caceci v. Di Canio Construction Corp.

Thereafter, in Staff v Lido Dunes, Inc. ( 47 Misc.2d 322), then-Justice Bernard S. Meyer, noting the general…