A New York appellate court has issued a ruling on a class action lawsuit involving A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc., affecting consumers who purchased gas appliances. The court's decision, made on May 6, 2026, addresses allegations of fraudulent inducement and misleading representations regarding the installation of these appliances. This ruling could have significant implications for consumer rights and warranty claims in New York.
The case, known as Harbord v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc. (Docket No. 2023-09752), involves plaintiffs Melissa Harbord and others who claimed that the defendants misrepresented the qualifications of installers for gas appliances sold through P.C. Richard. The plaintiffs argued that the installations were not performed by certified professionals, as claimed by the company, leading them to make purchases based on false information.
The dispute began in 2021 when the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc. and other associated parties. They alleged that the defendants' representations about the installers were deceptive and misleading, violating consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to assert that the term 'certified' was misleading because the installations did not comply with New York City regulations.
The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs had not stated a valid legal claim. However, the Supreme Court of Kings County, presided over by Justice Richard Velasquez, denied the motion on October 12, 2023, prompting the defendants to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division modified the lower court's order. The court upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss for the causes of action related to fraudulent inducement and violations of General Business Law. The court stated, "the amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that the plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of the defendants' allegedly deceptive act or practice."
However, the court also found merit in the defendants' arguments regarding other claims. Specifically, it ruled to dismiss the causes of action alleging unjust enrichment and breach of an express warranty. The judges on the panel included Colleen D. Duffy, Deborah A. Dowling, Phillip Hom, and Susan Quirk.
The court explained that the existence of a valid contract between the parties precluded recovery for unjust enrichment. Furthermore, it noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide the necessary notice of breach concerning the express warranty as required by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not allege that they notified the defendants of any breach within a reasonable time after discovering it.
This ruling has significant implications for consumers and businesses alike. It reinforces the importance of accurate representations by companies regarding their products and services. Consumers who believe they have been misled may find encouragement in the court's decision to allow claims of fraudulent inducement to proceed. However, the dismissal of unjust enrichment and breach of warranty claims serves as a reminder of the necessity of adhering to contractual obligations and legal requirements.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how companies communicate with consumers about their products and services, particularly regarding certifications and qualifications. It emphasizes the need for transparency and honesty in advertising and service delivery.
The plaintiffs may still pursue their claims of fraudulent inducement and violations of General Business Law. However, the defendants' ability to dismiss other claims may limit the scope of the lawsuit. The decision also raises questions about potential appeals and whether the plaintiffs will seek further legal recourse.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding the possibility of an appeal or any related cases pending. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future consumer protection lawsuits in New York.