Trell, Inc. v Fresh Aircraft Sales, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Trell, Inc. v Fresh Aircraft Sales, LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 33646(U) January 31, 2020 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 58580/2017 Judge: Sam D. Walker Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 INDEX NO. 58580/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2020 To commence the statutory time for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513[a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER PRESENT: HON. SAM D. WALKER, J.S.C. ---- ---------- ---- --- --------- ----------- --- -------------- ------ -'--------- ----- x Trell, Inc. DECISION & ORDER Index No. 58580/2017 Plaintiff, -againstFresh Aircraft Sales, LLC; Centerline Aircraft, LLC; and Norman Heldman, d/b/a Air America Atlantic, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The Court conducted a non-jury trial ip the above captioned matter which commenced on October 16, 2019 and ended on ,October 17, 2019. At completion of the trial, counsels were instructed to submit post-~rial memorandum. Submissions from 'i counsel for both sides were considered by the Court in arriving at Decision and Order. Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to an express engine warranty contained in an Aircraft Purchase Agreement. Plaintiff, a New York based aircraft purchaser, purchased a 1980, single engine, 4 seat Cessna airplane from Fresh Aircraft Sales, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that it had to perform certain repairs and made certain replacements to correct defects and/or discrepancies in the aircraft engine, which arose during the warranty period after the plane was delivered in New York. The warranty was for a period of twelve months or three hundred hours and governed under the laws of the State of Arizona. The Agreement also provided that in the event any action is filed in relation to 1 of 5 [*FILED: 2] WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 INDEX NO. 58580/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2020 the Agreement, the unsuccessful ~arty shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for the successful party's attorney fees. Plaintiff testified that warranty repairs and replacements were dc~neto the engine in the amount of $3,736.89. Plaintiff furthertestified defects and discrepancies that it notified Fresh Aircraft of the numerous times, by email, telephone , and written letter. Plaintiff also offered the testimony of an aircraft mechanic who verified that the claimed repairs were engine related. Defendant argues that the scope of the trial was limited by the order of Hon. . Lawrence l Ecker, JSC' entered on March 2019, where he ruled that based upon Arizona's UCC, two issues remain for trial. Whether there had been a breach of the engine warranty and damages. He. defined the measure of damages pursuant to \ Arizona Law (A.R.S. ~ 47-2714(8) as: \, The difference at the time and place ofacceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount. Arizona UCC requires notice to the seller if the buyer claims some defect after . ) the product has been accepted. To estaplish notice, Plaintiff testified that he notified ~ . - Defendant bye-mail, telephone and written .h!~tter identifying the .problems with the aircraft. No response was received. To support notice, Plaintiff offered a copy of a letter ; I _\ sent to Defendant by registered mail return receipt anda copy o~the envelope in which J it was mailed, stamped unclaimed. This letter referenced. prior attempts by Plaintiff to contact Defendant to no avail. It is the finding of this Court that Plaintiff met the notice requirement. 2 of 5 [*FILED: 3] WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 INDEX NO. 58580/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2020 r The next q~,estion is whether or not the defects identified by Plaintiff were , covered by the warranty. There is no dispute that there were repairs and replacements done on the airplane after it was delivered. The question, however, is whether these I' repairs were done to the engine. There is, little dispute between the parties as to what / constitutes the engine. The Court will, therefore, review the repair and replacements and determine whether they constitute repairs or routine maintenance. To support its contention that the /epairs and replacements were done to the '-. engine, Plaintiff offered testimony from an expert who testified that he examined the aircraft and found discrepancies. pilot finds something discrepancies: wrong A discrepancy occurs when either a mechanic or a with' a airplane. The expert identified the following . 1. The vacuum pump was broken - Part of the engine $393.87 2. Crank shaft seal leaks oil - Part of the engine $796.00 3. Lots of loose wires - Part of the engine $470.35 4. Alternator rylount Bracket - Part qf the engine $382.18 5. Engine Idle adjustment - Not part of engine $190.50 6. Oil Temperature gage inoperatiye- $466.50 Engine repair 7. Electric Fuel Pump leaking - Not part of engine.' $147.40 \ 8. Rocker arm gasket torn - Part of en~ine . $132.30 9. Intake gasket torn - Part of engine $129.94 10. EGT (exhaust gas temperature) inoperative $373.33 The testimony of Plaintiffs expert that the engine defects and discrepancies existed, was unopposed and is incontrovertible 3 of 5 since Defendant called no expert to [*FILED: 4] WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 INDEX NO. 58580/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2020 controvert the testimony. Both defense yvitness!3s were not airport mechanics. Court, however, does~ot agree with Plaintiff that ahyp~rt attached to the engineor,not, The of the aircraft, whether but which is necessary to the proper operation of the engine, should.as a matter of common understanding, be deemed to be covered by the t engine warranty. Engine has been defined' by' both Plaintiff -and Defendant as the casing, the cylinders withthe . pistons in them and; the crank shaft. Therefore, several of )' ~ . ' , the items identified by Plaintiffs expert, even though necessarY for the operation of the 'I '., - ' 1 aircraft cannot be consid~red part of the engine. , . \ . In fact, upon careful examination, none of the items listed' above falls within the definition of engine. The ,items listed seem more like routine maintenance repairs than ~ " , '/" - \ warranty repairs and the warranty' specifically applied .to ~ the engine. This is a 1980 Cesna 172, which was purchased in 2016. Itis unQisputed that the warranty is.limited to ,,- j the engine which is defined as the casing, the cylinders with the pistonsin them and the crank shaft. The Court agrees with Defendantthatreplacementsof seals and gaskets are routine maintenance and the remaining discrepancies could easily be argued as not • 1 - - being ,a part of the engine. Items such,'as loose wires"in the engine compart'ment, repair of the alter~ator ,mounting bracket safety clip; engine 'idling too rapidly which was adjusted with a screw driver; repair/replacementof the oil temperature gauge, which is I part of the instrument panel in,the cockpit, are not part of the eng ine. The final two items , , .'. I , ./ ) repaired were a leaking electric fuel pump and an inoperative exhaust gas temperature ( " ,. " gauge. Plaintiffs expert testified that these repairs were not. part to the engine. 4 of 5 bf and does not pertain [*FILED: 5] WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2020 04:31 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 INDEX NO. 58580/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2020 Even if this Court were to accept the measure of damages laid out by Judge Ecker in his Decision entered on March 20, 2019, where he limited damages to the difference in value of the aircraft when it was delivered, and the value it would have had if it had been warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount, Plaintiff still would not have met its burden. All that Plaintiff established ( through testimony was the repair cost for each ! item of discrepancies, '- without ". establishing how the value of the aircraft was affected (difference in value). Finally, even though the Aircraft Purchase Agreement provides that the unsuccessful party in a legal action shall pay to the successful party a reasonable sum ( for the successful party's attorney fees, Defendant has not set forth an amount or how such amount was arrived at by setting forth the time spent on various tasks, whether by counselor paralegal and the hourly rate for each. That being the case, the Court is , unable to ascertainwhat amount would be reasonable in light of the work performed. Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant breached the engine warranty. The foregoing constitutes the Opinion, Decisio Dated: White Plains, New York January 31, 2020 / . Cluc~.~1 HON. SAM D. WALKER, JSC 5 of 5 :I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.