Opinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the court properly determined that the cause of action alleging breach of warranty was time-barred ( see, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 U.C.C. [2]; Parrino v. Sperling, 232 A.D.2d 618; Homart Dev. Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 63 A.D.2d 727). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the August 15, 1995, release executed by the parties discharged all of the plaintiff's future claims against the defendants relating to the subject product ( see, Leggio v. Cantor Fitzgerald Inc., 182 A.D.2d 611), and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action for fraud ( see, Edwil Indus. v. Stroba Instruments Corp., 131 A.D.2d 425).
Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.