Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Motion to strike exhibits from appellants' brief granted. Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied plaintiffs' motions for permission to amend their complaints to assert causes of action for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and deceptive business practices. Because plaintiffs, in their proposed complaint, have not alleged that they were in privity with defendants, they may not recover on a claim of breach of implied warranty (see, Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto. Serv., 89 A.D.2d 785, affd 58 N.Y.2d 993; see also, Miller v General Motors Corp., 99 A.D.2d 454, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1081).
The proposed cause of action for breach of express warranty is insufficient because of failure to set forth the terms of the warranty upon which plaintiffs rely. A complaint for breach of contract must allege the provisions of the contract upon which the claim is based (Bomser v Moyle, 89 A.D.2d 202; Shields v School of Law, 77 A.D.2d 867; Lupinski v Village of Ilion, 59 A.D.2d 1050).
Finally, the proposed cause of action for deceptive business practices is defective for failure to allege any acts of plaintiffs after June 19, 1980 (the effective date of the deceptive business practice provision of the General Business Law) in reliance upon the alleged deceptive representation (see, Hemming v Certainteed Corp., 97 A.D.2d 976, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 758).