From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Becton v. Firestone Tire Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 1972
38 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

January 13, 1972


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on June 10, 1970, denying defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss for insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, with leave, however, to plaintiff in the interests of justice to apply at Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service upon him by defendant-appellant of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry thereon. We have held that the mere fact of a "blowout" does not, in and of itself, establish a breach of warranty ( Halpern v. Jad Constr. Corp., 19 A.D.2d 875, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 823). Plaintiff has failed to allege in what respect there was such breach, and wherein the deficiency lay. It might be that on a repleading the defect can be remedied. In light of the short interval between purchase of the tire and the occurrence of the accident, plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to do so.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., McGivern, Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Becton v. Firestone Tire Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 1972
38 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

Becton v. Firestone Tire Co.

Case Details

Full title:LINWOOD BECTON, Respondent, v. FIRESTONE TIRE CO., Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 13, 1972

Citations

38 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Muniz v. American Red Cross

On the other hand, we do not think plaintiff's injury and the circumstances surrounding it warrant an…

Douglas v. Holzhouser

Plaintiff has failed to show any defect in the saddle or that it was improperly affixed to the horse.…