Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christopher JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILL'S HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion seeking an award of attorney's fees. We affirm. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, defendant's alleged breach of a contract pursuant to which defendant was to install heating and air conditioning equipment in plaintiff's residence. Although the contract is not included in the record on appeal, we note that Supreme Court's decision indicates that the contract contains a clause providing that attorney's fees in a certain amount would be added to the balance owed under the contract in the event that the unpaid balance was referred to an attorney for collection. Following a nonjury trial, the court, inter alia, dismissed the claim for breach of contract but awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $1,500 on plaintiff's claim for breach of implied warranty.
“[T]he general rule is that each litigant is required to absorb the cost of his [or her] own attorney's fees ․ in the absence of a contractual or statutory liability” (Widewaters Prop. Dev. Co., Inc. v. Katz, 38 A.D.3d 1220, 1222, 836 N.Y.S.2d 746 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Plaintiff contends, however, that he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees on the breach of implied warranty claim pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-327(2), which provides in relevant part that, when a consumer contract states that the seller may recover attorney's fees incurred as the result of the breach of any contractual obligation by the buyer, “it shall be implied that the ․ seller ․ shall pay the [buyer's] attorney's fees ․ incurred as the result of a breach of any contractual obligation” by the seller. Here, we conclude that the statute is inapplicable because plaintiff was awarded damages only on its claim for breach of implied warranty, which is distinct from plaintiff's claim for breach of contract (see generally Simmons v. Washing Equip. Tech., 51 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 857 N.Y.S.2d 412; Furia v. Furia, 116 A.D.2d 694, 695, 498 N.Y.S.2d 12).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 13, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)