From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lamagna v. Montauk Rug Carpet

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51564 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Opinion

2002-1724 S C.

Decided November 21, 2003.

Appeal by plaintiffs from a small claims judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (S. Hackeling, J.), entered on August 14, 2002, which dismissed their action. Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: DOYLE, P.J., WINICK and SKELOS, JJ.


The plaintiffs bought a 100% wool carpet from defendant after informing defendant's salesperson that it was to be used in their basement and that a dehumidifier and air conditioning equipment were located there. Three weeks after the carpeting was installed, water from a leak in the dehumidifier caused one of the two colors of the carpeting to run. In our opinion, the judgment should be affirmed. Under the circumstances presented, no implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose was created ( see UCC 2-315). There was no proof that plaintiffs relied on defendant's skill or judgment to furnish a carpet suitable for plaintiffs' particular needs. Accordingly substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807).


Summaries of

Lamagna v. Montauk Rug Carpet

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51564 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)
Case details for

Lamagna v. Montauk Rug Carpet

Case Details

Full title:JAMES LAMAGNA and SHERI LAMAGNA, Appellants, v. MONTAUK RUG and CARPET…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51564 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Citing Cases

Duke's Roofing & Exterior Constr., LLC v. Lexis Coatings, LLC

]" Id. Duke's continued the relationship nevertheless. More importantly, as to the implied warranty claim,…