From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 11, 1965
205 N.E.2d 863 (N.Y. 1965)

Opinion

Argued January 11, 1965

Decided February 11, 1965

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, BIRDIE AMSTERDAM, J.

Murray L. Lewis, Harry H. Lipsig and Marvin Luboff for appellants.

Leonard L. Berliner, Stephen F. Selig and Burton K. Katkin for respondent.



Order affirmed without costs. The complaint states no cause of action, either in negligence or breach of warranty, against defendant Firestone. However, in reaching this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to consider the question — and we reserve it for a proper case — whether an action for breach of an implied warranty may ever be brought against the manufacturer of a component part such as an automobile tire. (Cf. Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 432, 437.)

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI and BERGAN.


Summaries of

Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 11, 1965
205 N.E.2d 863 (N.Y. 1965)
Case details for

Halpern v. Jad Construction Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HALPERN, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, KENNETH L. MARKS, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 11, 1965

Citations

205 N.E.2d 863 (N.Y. 1965)
205 N.E.2d 863
257 N.Y.S.2d 940

Citing Cases

Franov v. Exxon Co.

The IAS court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The mere fact of a tire blowout, in…

Collins v. Uniroyal

Tires suffer blowouts for reasons other than defects. See Williams v. U.S. Royal, 234 La. 510, 101 So.2d 488…