Mendola v F & G Pools & Stoves

[*1] Mendola v F & G Pools & Stoves 2012 NY Slip Op 50081(U) Decided on January 17, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 17, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-2459 OR C. x

Mary Mendola and JOANNE M. STILL, Appellants,

against

F & G Pools & Stoves, Respondent. x

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Newburgh, Orange County (Peter M. Kulkin, J.), entered May 26, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the principal sum of $4,498.

Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover the purchase price of a pellet stove, plus expenses relating to its installation. At a nonjury trial, plaintiffs established that the pellet stove they had purchased from defendant, a local merchant, was defective and that they had paid defendant a total of $4,498 therefor. Plaintiffs were provided with a manufacturer's warranty. Subsequently, the stove caused two fires in their home. Following the trial, the City Court dismissed the action, finding that the sale was governed by the manufacturer's limited warranty and that plaintiffs had failed to pursue their remedy thereunder.

Our review of this small claims action is limited to determining whether substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1807). Contrary to the City Court's determination, the manufacturer's limited warranty does not preclude plaintiffs from recovering against defendant in this action based on a breach of defendant's implied warranty of merchantability (see UCC 2-314 [2]; Lupa v Jock's, 131 Misc 2d 536 [Oswego City Ct 1986]; cf. UCC 2-317 [c]). The evidence adduced at trial, to the effect that the stove had caught fire on two occasions, warrants a finding that defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability, as the stove was unfit for its ordinary purpose (UCC 2-314 [2] [c]), thereby entitling plaintiffs to damages in the sum of $4,498 (see UCC 2-714 [2]).

Accordingly, as the judgment failed to provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UCCA 1807), the judgment
is reversed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the principal sum of $4,498.

LaCava, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 17, 2012