Opinion
CA 03-02035.
Decided April 30, 2004.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered July 9, 2003. The order granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the claims for consequential and incidental damages.
HANDELMAN, WITKOWICZ LEVITSKY, ROCHESTER (MARTIN S. HANDELMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HARTER, SECREST EMERY, LLP, ROCHESTER (A. PAUL BRITTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, GORSKI, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing all claims for consequential and incidental damages. Because the contract in this case is one for the sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code authorizes the parties, as they did here, to limit the remedies available upon breach by excluding claims for consequential damages ( see UCC 2-719; Equitable Lbr. Corp. v. IPA Land Dev. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 516, 519; Auburn Steel Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 158 A.D.2d 938). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.