Bd. of Educ. of Palmyra-Macedon Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Flower City Glass Co.

178 A.D.3d 1359

117 N.Y.S.3d 388

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PALMYRA–MACEDON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.FLOWER CITY GLASS CO., INC., Flower City Glass Associates, LLC, Flower City Glass Co. of New York, LLC, Flower City Glass, and Nudo Products, Inc., Defendants–Appellants.

856

CA 18–01747

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered December 20, 2019

OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL A. REDDY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS FLOWER CITY GLASS CO., INC., FLOWER CITY GLASS ASSOCIATES, LLC, FLOWER CITY GLASS CO. OF NEW YORK, LLC, AND FLOWER CITY GLASS.

ERNSTROM & DRESTE, LLP, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY D. BOLDT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT NUDO PRODUCTS, INC.

COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (ROBERT W. CONNOLLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion of defendant Nudo Products, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's breach of express warranty cause of action against it to the extent that this cause of action is based on documents or agreements other than the Limited Finish Warranty Agreement and for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against it for breach of express warranty and common-law indemnification and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff contracted with defendant Flower City Glass Co., Inc. (Flower City) to perform certain work on a school building (project). After the work had been completed, plaintiff noticed that the wall panels installed pursuant to the contract were defective. Flower City had purchased the wall panels from defendant Nudo Products, Inc. (Nudo). Plaintiff commenced this action asserting, as relevant to these appeals, a breach of contract cause of action against Flower City and defendants Flower City Glass Associates, LLC, Flower City Glass Co. of New York, LLC, and Flower City Glass (collectively, Flower City defendants) and a breach of express warranty cause of action against Nudo.

The Flower City defendants appeal from that part of an order that denied in part their motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them. Nudo, as limited by its brief, appeals from that part of the same order that denied in part its motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and the Flower City defendants' cross claims against it.

We reject the Flower City defendants' contention on their appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying in part their motion with respect to the breach of contract cause of action against them. Initially, we agree with plaintiff that the Flower City defendants' contention that the certifications of work issued by the project architect and the construction manager constituted plaintiff's waiver of any alleged breach is not properly before us inasmuch as it was raised for the first time in their reply papers on the motion (see Edwards v. Gorman, 162 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, 78 N.Y.S.3d 536 [4th Dept. 2018] ). The Flower City defendants also improperly raised for the first time in their reply papers the contention that plaintiff failed to sufficiently state a breach of contract cause of action in its amended complaint because plaintiff failed to specify "which, if any, specific contract provisions" were allegedly breached (see id. ). To the extent that the Flower City defendants argue that the breaches alleged by plaintiff in opposition to their motion constituted new legal theories, that contention was properly raised in their reply papers but lacks merit (see generally Mathew v. Mishra, 41 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 838 N.Y.S.2d 292 [4th Dept. 2007] ). Here, plaintiff's arguments in opposition were not new theories of liability but rather specific examples of how Flower City failed to "install[ ] ... the panels in a workmanlike and professional manner and in conformance with industry standards and pursuant to the Contract Documents" as alleged in the amended complaint (see Giacometti v. Farrell [Appeal No. 2], 133 A.D.3d 1387, 1389, 20 N.Y.S.3d 826 [4th Dept. 2015] ).

With respect to the merits, we agree with the Flower City defendants that they met their initial burden on that part of the motion with respect to the breach of contract cause of action by submitting the certifications issued by the project architect and construction manager, which constituted prima facie evidence that Flower City complied with all contractual requirements (see Gee v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 615, 616, 758 N.Y.S.2d 157 [2d Dept. 2003] ; Stevens v. Bast Hatfield Inc., 226 A.D.2d 981, 981–982, 641 N.Y.S.2d 186 [3d Dept. 1996] ). We further conclude, however, that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether Flower City failed to install the panels "in conformance with industry standards and pursuant to the Contract Documents" and whether that failure proximately caused the damage to plaintiff's panels (cf. Gee, 304 A.D.2d at 616, 758 N.Y.S.2d 157 ).

We agree with Nudo on its appeal that the court erred in denying that part of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Flower City defendants' breach of express warranty cross claim as untimely, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. In order to meet its initial burden on the motion of demonstrating that the applicable statute of limitations period had expired, Nudo was required to establish when the Flower City defendants' cross claim accrued (see Larkin v. Rochester Hous. Auth., 81 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 916 N.Y.S.2d 694 [4th Dept. 2011] ; see also Haynes v. Williams, 162 A.D.3d 1377, 1378, 79 N.Y.S.3d 365 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 906, 2018 WL 4997517 [2018] ). Although generally the statute of limitations for a breach of express warranty claim is four years, here Nudo's Limited Finish Warranty Agreement (Limited Warranty), the express warranty at issue, contractually reduced that period to one year (see UCC 2–725[1] ). Inasmuch as the Limited Warranty warranted the panels from the development of certain specified defects "for a period of Twenty (20) years," it constitutes a warranty of future performance (see UCC 2–725[2] ; Schwatka v. Super Millwork, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 897, 899, 965 N.Y.S.2d 547 [2d Dept. 2013] ). Thus, the Flower City defendants' cross claim for breach of the Limited Warranty accrued "when the breach [was] or should have been discovered" ( UCC 2–725[2] ; see Schwatka, 106 A.D.3d at 899, 965 N.Y.S.2d 547 ). We agree with Nudo that Flower City knew of the circumstances constituting the alleged...