Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,300+ case briefs...

Cirillo v. Slomin’s Inc.

Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County
768 N.Y.S.2d 759 (2003)


The Cirillos (plaintiffs) spoke to Howard Goldberg, a representative for Slomin’s Inc. (defendant), about buying an alarm system from Slomin’s. Among other things, Goldberg told the Cirillos that the alarm system would send a signal to a central station using telephone lines. Goldberg also told the Cirillos that if their telephone line were cut, the alarm would automatically send a signal to the central station and police would respond. The Cirillos agreed to buy the alarm system. The purchase contract contained a merger clause and several boilerplate disclaimers. The merger clause stated that there were “no oral … representations between the parties.” Two general disclaimers claimed that the Cirillos acknowledged that Slomin’s had not made any representations outside the contract and the Cirillos were not relying on any prior representations. The contract also contained a specific disclaimer that: “Slomin’s makes no representation or warranty that the alarm system . . . may not be circumvented, compromised or defeated.” After the system was installed, a burglar cut the telephone lines to the Cirillos’ home and burglarized it. Either the central station did not receive an automatic signal, or it was ignored. As a result, the burglary was not discovered until the Cirillos came home. The Cirillos sued Slomin’s for fraud, negligence, and breach of warranty. Slomin’s did not dispute that Goldberg made the precontractual statement. However, Slomin’s argued that the contract prevented the Cirillos’ claims because it disclaimed any warranty that the system could not be circumvented.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Winslow, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 488,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 488,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,300 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial