TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shero v. Home Show U.S.A., Ltd.

Brian R. Shero v. Home Show U.S.A., Ltd.

Shero v. Home Show U.S.A., Ltd., 193 A.D.2d 1072 (1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 28, 1993
Citations
193 A.D.2d 1072598 N.Y.S.2d 4081993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569221 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 664

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as time-barred. Plaintiffs were required to commence their action within four years after the cause of action accrued (see, UCC 2-725 [1]). The cause of *1073 action accrued on March 22, 1985, when installation of the solar heating unit was complete (see, UCC 2-725 [2]; Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Celotex Corp., 74 AD2d 679, 681 ). Plaintiffs did not commence the action until March 14, 1990, nearly a year after the limitations period had expired.

We reject plaintiffs’ argument that article 12 of the Energy Law and the regulations set forth at 9 NYCRR part 7830 have the effect of extending the four-year limitations period. We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that their cause of action did not accrue until discovery of the alleged defects in the solar panels. Nothing in the express warranty "explicitly extends to future performance of the goods” (UCC 2-725 [2]). Under the terms of the warranty, defendant agreed only to "perform necessary repairs on or replace the product.” Such agreement does not amount to an explicit warranty of the future performance of the goods (see, Shapiro v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 AD2d 671 ; cf., Mittasch v Seal Lock Burial Vault, 42 AD2d 573 ). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—Dismiss Action.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1996: 11998: 219962026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baker v. Dec International580 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. 1998)
  2. Washington Freightliner, Inc. v. Shantytown Pier, Inc.719 A.2d 541 (Md. 1998)
  3. Franklin Nursing Home v. Power Cooling, Inc.227 A.D.2d 374 (1996)

Most recent

  1. Washington Freightliner, Inc. v. Shantytown Pier, Inc.719 A.2d 541 (Md. 1998)
  2. Baker v. Dec International580 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. 1998)
  3. Franklin Nursing Home v. Power Cooling, Inc.227 A.D.2d 374 (1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Mittasch v. Seal Lock Burial Vault, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 573 (1973) 46
Shapiro v. Long Island Lightning Co., 71 A.D.2d 671 (1979) 18
Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Celotex Corp., 74 A.D.2d 679 (1980) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list