Opinion
December 12, 1975
Appeal from the Herkimer Supreme Court.
Present — Moule, J.P., Cardamone, Simons, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. We affirm upon the statement of facts and for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Special Term, McLaughlin, J. We only add that questions of fact also exist (1) as to whether the disclaimer of warranty became effective (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-201, subd (10); 2-316; Zicari v Joseph Harris Co., 33 A.D.2d 17; cf. Pennsylvania Gas Co. v Secord Bros., 73 Misc.2d 1031, affd on opn at Special Term, 44 A.D.2d 906); (2) in respect of defendant's defense that plaintiff's negligence caused the machine to fail; and (3) as to defendants' knowledge of the extent of plaintiff's reliance on the quality and quantity of work which the machine was represented as capable of producing (Uniform Commercial Code, 2-315), as bearing on defendants' responsibility for consequential damages and the extent thereof (Uniform Commercial Code, 2-715; 51 N.Y. Jur, Sales, § 237; B.M.C. Mfg. Corp. v Tarshis, 278 App. Div. 266, 271).