TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reiss v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp.

Edward Reiss, as Assignee of Plastic Extruded Products Co. v. Pacific Steel Pool Corp.

Reiss v. Pac. Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc. 2d 78 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
March 2, 1973
Judges
Brttbot, Loins
Citations
73 Misc. 2d 78341 N.Y.S.2d 3641973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 217312 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 297

Opinion of the Court — Loinsbrttbot

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

Loins GK Brttbot, J.

This is a motion on behalf of the defendant for summary judgment.

The action is one to recover for goods sold and delivered. Apparently the goods involved were sold and delivered to defendant between February 26, 1965 and May 25, 1965. The terms of payment were “ Net 30 days, F. O. B. Shipping Point ”. The instant action was commenced on November 25, 1969.

The defendant now moves on the ground that the action is time-barred by section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code which provides a four-year Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff opposes the motion and alleges that the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213 is applicable.

Subdivision (1) of section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code provides: ‘ ‘ An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued.”

CPLR 213 provides: “The following actions must be commenced within six years: * * *2. an action upon a contractual obligation or liability express or implied, except as provided in article 2 of the uniform commercial code; ’ ’

In the Practice Commentaries (McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 213, C213:2, p. 326) it is stated as follows: “It should be observed that actions for breach of contract for sale are not governed by this statute. McKinney’s Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 provides a four-year statute of limitations for breach of sales contracts. This provision prevails over the CPLB provision (See CPLR 201).” (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing it is apparent that the four-year Statute of Limitations is applicable in the instant case and, therefore, the action is time-barred.

For that reason, the motion is granted dismissing the complaint.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 11984: 11985: 12003: 219772026peak 2003 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co.681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984)
  2. Burton v. Artery Company367 A.2d 935 (Md. 1977)
  3. Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor332 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1985)
  4. Troy Boiler Works, Inc. v. Sterile Technologies, Inc.3 Misc. 3d 1006 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  5. Troy Boiler Works, Inc. v. Sterile Tech., Inc.2003 NY Slip Op 23990 (N.Y. Sup. Rensselaer 2003)

Most recent

  1. Troy Boiler Works, Inc. v. Sterile Technologies, Inc.3 Misc. 3d 1006 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  2. Troy Boiler Works, Inc. v. Sterile Tech., Inc.2003 NY Slip Op 23990 (N.Y. Sup. Rensselaer 2003)
  3. Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor332 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1985)
  4. Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co.681 P.2d 214 (Utah 1984)
  5. Burton v. Artery Company367 A.2d 935 (Md. 1977)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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