From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gordon v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1997
239 A.D.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

holding that "there can be no implied warranty absent privity between [the defendants] and the plaintiffs"

Summary of this case from Mahoney v. Endo Health Sols., Inc.

Opinion

May 6, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).


Plaintiffs, purchasers or lessees of automobiles manufactured by defendant, allege that they sustained economic loss by reason of various defects in the automobiles, and, as the matter now stands, are left with breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability as possible theories of recovery. Defendant correctly argues that there can be no implied warranty absent privity between itself and plaintiffs ( see, Jaffee Assocs. v. Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 N.Y.2d 993), but, as motion court explained, such privity would exist if the dealerships with which plaintiffs dealt were defendant's sales or leasing agents, and disclosure is needed with respect to the latter possibility. Concerning the express warranty claim, we reject defendant's argument, at this juncture, that it should be granted summary judgment as to those particular alleged defects that plaintiffs made no attempt to justify either in their discovery responses or opposition to the instant motion ( see, CPLR 3212[g]). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Gordon v. Ford Motor Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1997
239 A.D.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

holding that "there can be no implied warranty absent privity between [the defendants] and the plaintiffs"

Summary of this case from Mahoney v. Endo Health Sols., Inc.

denying motion to dismiss because "privity would exist if the dealerships with which plaintiffs dealt were defendant's sales or leasing agents"

Summary of this case from Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC

noting only that privity would exist if the dealerships from which the plaintiffs purchased or leased their vehicles were "defendant's sales or leasing agents"

Summary of this case from Cummings v. FCA US LLC
Case details for

Gordon v. Ford Motor Company

Case Details

Full title:DAVID Z. GORDON et al., Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: May 6, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

Weidman v. Ford Motor Co.

The implied warranty claims of Plaintiffs Ginsberg and Adams also fail because privity between the buyer and…

Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC

Plaintiffs counter that New York law finds privity where dealerships act as GM's sales agent. SeeGordon v.…