Terwilliger v. Max Co.

Full title: CHARLES TERWILLIGER AND HELEN TERWILLIGER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MAX…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 25, 2016

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

210 CA 15-00897

03-25-2016

CHARLES TERWILLIGER AND HELEN TERWILLIGER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MAX CO., LTD., MAX USA CORP., AND NUMAX, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN P. FREEDENBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (ANNE B. RIMMLER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT CHARLES TERWILLIGER. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD S. BINKO, CHEEKTOWAGA (RICHARD S. BINKO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT HELEN TERWILLIGER.

SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

PRESENT:

GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN P. FREEDENBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (ANNE B. RIMMLER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT CHARLES TERWILLIGER.

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD S. BINKO, CHEEKTOWAGA (RICHARD S. BINKO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT HELEN TERWILLIGER.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered January 20, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part the motions of plaintiffs for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, denied that part of the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for ordinary purposes.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Terwilliger v Max Co., Ltd. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 25, 2016]).

Entered: March 25, 2016

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court