St. Mary's Protectress Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church v. Challenger Electrical Equipment Corp.

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth and eighth causes of action. In its complaint alleging strict products liability, plaintiff alleges that a defective electrical baseboard heater manufactured by defendant caused a fire which resulted in extensive structural damage to plaintiff’s recreation hall. Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff does not seek to recover economic loss only (see, Schiavone Constr. Co. v Mayo Corp., 56 NY2d 667 , revg on dissenting opn 81 AD2d 221 , 228). The cases upon which defendant relies cover a different situation entirely — the situation where a product fails to perform adequately, resulting in economic loss only. In those cases, courts have limited plaintiff to available contract remedies (see, Ralston Purina Co. v McKee & Co., 158 AD2d 969 ; Richman v Albert, 127 AD2d 992 , lv denied 70 NY2d 745 ; Butler v Caldwell & Cook, 122 AD2d 559 ; County of Chenango Indus. Dev. Agency v Lockwood Greene Engrs., 114 AD2d 728 , appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 757 ). Such is not the case here.

Supreme Court also properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim as time-barred. Plaintiff’s claim, which sounds in tort, arose on the date of the injury (see, Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 NY2d 395 , 402-404). Plaintiff’s action, commenced within three years of the date of the injury, was timely (see, Heller v U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 64 NY2d 407 , 412). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — Dismiss Causes of Action.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.