Case Name: Hanover Square Antiques, Ltd., Doing Business as Hanover Square Gallery, Appellant, v. Dennis R. Insalaco et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2005-03-22
Citations: 16 A.D.3d 258
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hanover Square Antiques, Ltd., Doing Business as Hanover Square Gallery, Appellant, v Dennis R. Insalaco et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
Hanover Square Antiques, Ltd., Doing Business as Hanover Square Gallery, Appellant, v Dennis R. Insalaco et al., Respondents.
[791 NYS2d 545]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered February 2, 2004, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The claims for breach of warranty and fraud were untimely (UCC 2-725 [1]), since plaintiff commenced this action more than four years after the sale of the painting, when the causes accrued. Moreover, the contract did not fall within the future performance exception of UCC 2-725 (2), since there was no express warranty of future performance in the invoice of sale (Rosen v Spanierman, 894 F2d 28 [2d Cir 1990]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.