Opinion
October 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.).
Triable issues of fact exist as to the fifth and largest of the invoices involved in the action, including whether a timely objection was made to it (see, James Talcott, Inc. v United States Tel. Co., 52 A.D.2d 197), and whether the delay in objecting, if any, was reasonable (see, Camp, Dresser McKee v City of Niagara Falls, 142 A.D.2d 973). Nor can it be said as a matter of law that plaintiff did flawless work in a timely fashion, which was accepted by defendant without timely objection of any sort, and which was then accepted by defendant's customer without complaint as to plaintiff's work.
We do not consider plaintiff's argument, presented for the first time on appeal, that defendant disposed of allegedly defective goods in violation of UCC 2-515. Were we to consider it, we would find it to be without merit, since no such sales of goods were here involved (see, Milau Assocs. v North Ave. Dev. Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 482).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.