BARBARA TICHNER, Plaintiff, -against- GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a HERITAGE FARM, PATRICIA GRIFFITH and CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., Defendants.

No. 651517-2013

Supreme Court of New York County

Plaintiff, by her attorneys, BERNSTONE and GRIECO, LLP., as and for her Complaint, respectfully alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Barbara Tichner is an resident of the County
City and State of New York.
2. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions to
Sections 1600 to 1603 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
3. Defendant, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. is a domestic
professional corporation, authorized and doing business in the
State of New York.
4. Defendant, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. is doing
business under the assumed name of Miller & Associates.
5. Defendant, GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. is a domestic corporation,
authorized and doing business in the State of New York.
6. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. is doing business under the
assumed name of HERITAGE FARM.
7. Defendant Patricia Griffith is a resident of the County,
City and State of New York.
8. On or about March 29, 2012, Plaintiff, Barbara Tichner,
purchased a six year old gelding Welsh pony known as “Sports Talk”
from Lane Change Farms, for a purchase price of $175,000.00.
9. Said transaction and all negotiations connected thereto
transpired between Plaintiff and Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC.
d/b/a Heritage Farm, by and through Defendant and Patricia Griffith.
10. At all times relevant hereto, trainer Patricia Griffith
acted in her capacity as agent, servant or employee of Defendant
GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm.
11. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents servants and or employees located and presented Sport’s Talk
as investment pony and a perfect fit for competitive jumping for
Francesca Dildabanian, plaintiff’s daughter.
12. Defendant Patricia Griffith located and presented Sport’s
Talk as investment pony and a perfect fit for competitive jumping
for Francesca Dildabanian, plaintiff’s daughter.
13. In negotiations for the purchase of the horse, Plaintiff
it made clear to Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm,
that she wished to purchase a horse for the purpose of competitive
jumping by her daughter Francesca Dildabanian, a beginner in the
Pony Hunter’s for a short time, and thereafter for the purpose of
investment for sale and/or lease for a profit.
14. In negotiations for the purchase of the horse, Plaintiff
made clear to Patricia Griffith, that she wished to purchase a
horse for the purpose of competitive jumping by her daughter
Francesca Dildabanian a beginner in the Pony Hunter’s for a short
time, and thereafter for the purpose of investment for sale or
lease for a profit.
15. As part of the negotiations for the sale of the said
horse, GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agents servants
and or employees represented to Plaintiff that the horse was well
suited for purpose of competitive jumping by Francesca Dildabanian
a beginner in the Pony Hunter’s, and thereafter for the purpose of
investment for sale and/or lease for a profit and represented to
plaintiff that the horse was suitable for those intended purposes.
16. As part of the negotiations for the sale of the said
horse, Patricia Griffith represented to Plaintiff that the horse
was well suited for purpose of competitive jumping by Francesca
Dildabanian a beginner in the Pony Hunter’s, and thereafter for the
purpose of investment for sale and/ or lease for a profit and
represented to plaintiff that the horse was sui table for those
intended purposes.
17. Thereafter, in negotiations for the purchase of the said
horse, Plaintiff indicated to Patricia Griffith that she wished a
pre-purchase examination and vetting of the horse to be performed.
18. On or about March 24, 2012, trainer Patricia Griffith
requested, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller &
Associates, to perform an pre-purchase examination and vetting and
to discover and notify Plaintiff of any illness and/or physical
defects in the pony.
19. On or about March 24, 2012, trainer Patricia Griffith
requested, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller &
Associates, to perform an pre-purchase examination including
radiographs and vetting and to discover and notify Plaintiff of any
illness and/or physical defects in the pony.
20. On or about March 24, 2012, trainer Patricia Griffith
requested, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller &
Associates, to perform an pre-purchase examination to evaluate the
pony for the purpose of competitive jumping by Francesca, a
beginner in the Pony Hunter’s, and for the eventual sale and or
lease of the pony for a profit.
21. On or about March 24, 2012 an pre-purchase examination OF
“Sport’S Talk” was performed by CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM of
CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller & Associates.
22. On or about March 24, 2012 an pre-purchase examination was
performed by CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM of CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER,
DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller & Associates of the pony “Sports Talk” for
the benefit of Plaintiff, and with the intent that Plaintiff would
rely upon the report.
23. On or about March 24, 2012 radiographs were performed on
“Sports Talk.”
24. On or about March 24, 2012 radiographs were performed on
“Sports Talk” at the request of Defendant, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER,
DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller & Associates its agents servants and or
employees.
25. On or about March 24, 2012 radiographs were performed on
 “Sports Talk” by CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller &
Associates its agents servants and or employees.
26. On or about March 24, 2012 said radiographs revealed that
“Sports Talk” had rotation in his feet.
27. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agents,
servants and or employees that the pony, “Sports Talk”, was sound,
healthy, possessed no physical defects, was fit for competitive
jumping and was a good investment pony.
28. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents, servants and or employees that the pony, “Sports Talk”, was
sound, healthy and possessed no physical defects.
29. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents, servants and or employees that the pony, “Sports Talk” was
fit for competitive jumping.
30. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents, servants and or employees that the pony, “Sports Talk” was
fit for competitive jumping by Francesca Dildabanian.
31. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents, servants and or employees that the pony, “Sports Talk” was
a good investment pony.
32. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant Patricia Griffith that the pony, “Sports
Talk”, was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects, was fit
for competitive jumping and was a good investment pony.
38. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant Patricia Griffith that the pony, “Sports
Talk”, was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects.
34. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant Patricia Griffith that the pony, “Sports Talk”
was fit for competitive jumping.
35. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant Patricia Griffith that the pony, “Sports Talk”
was fit for competitive jumping by Francesca Dildabanian.
36. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant Patricia Griffith that the pony, “Sports Talk”
was a good investment pony.
37. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller
& Associates, its agents servants and or employees that the pony,
“Sports Talk”, was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects,
was fit for competitive jumping and was a good investment pony.
38. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller
& Associates, its agents servants and or employees that the pony,
“Sports Talk”, was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects.
39. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller
& Associates, its agents servants and or employees that the pony,
“Sports Talk” was fit for competitive jumping.
40. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller
& Associates, its agents servants and or employees that the pony,
“Sports Talk” was fit for competitive jumping by Francesca
Dildabanian.
 41. At the completion of the pre-purchase exam Plaintiff was
advised by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller
& Associates, its agents servants and or employees that the pony,
“Sports Talk” was a good investment pony.
42. At no time prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the pony did
defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agents,
servants and or employees advise Plaintiff that radiographs
performed upon “Sports Talk” on March 24, 2012, revealed rotation
of the pony’s feet.
43. At no time prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the pony did
defendant Patricia Griffith advise Plaintiff that the radiographs
performed upon “Sports Talk” on March 24, 2012, revealed rotation
of the pony’s feet.
44. At no time prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the pony did
defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. d/b/a Miller &
Associates its agents servants and or employees advise Plaintiff
that the radiographs performed upon ~sports Talk” on March 24,
2012, revealed rotation of the pony’s feet.
45. Prior to plaintiff’s purchase of ~sports Talk”, Plaintiff
had no knowledge of the rotation defect.
46. Relying on representations made by Patricia Griffith that
~sports Talk” was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects,
was suited for investment and competitive jumping for Francesca,
Plaintiff purchased the pony.
47. Relying on representations made by GOLDENS BRIDGE INC.
d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agents, servants and or employees that
~sports Talk” was sound, healthy, possessed no physical defects,
was suited for investment and competitive jumping for Francesca,
Plaintiff purchased the pony.
48. Relying on representations made by CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER,
DVM. P.C., that ~sports Talk” was sound, healthy, possessed no
physical defects, was suited for investment and competitive jumping
for Francesca, Plaintiff purchased the pony.
49. Sometime after the purchase plaintiff learned that Sports
Talk suffered from laminitis and that the pre-purchase radiographs
revealed physical defects and rotation in his feet.
50. Sometime after the purchase plaintiff learned during the
time that the pony was at Heritage Farm he repeatedly suffered from
sore feet and in fact had been blocked in order to compete in Pony
Finals in early August 2012.[irp]
51. Sometime after the purchase plaintiff learned during the
time that the pony was at Heritage Farm he repeatedly suffered from
sore feet and in fact had been blocked in order to compete in Pony
Finals in early August 2012 which all was concealed from plaintiff.
52. The pony’s physical defect ( s) render him useless to
Plaintiff for any and all purposes for which she purchased him.
53. The pony’s physical defect ( s) render him useless for
competitive jumping.
54. The pony’s physical defect ( s) render him useless for
investment.
55. The pony’s physical defect(s) render him useless for sale
and or leasing
56. Since the original purchase of the horse, Plaintiff has
expended considerable sums for veterinary treatment, daily care and
maintenance, show costs and training of said pony.
COUNT I
PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS – MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD
57. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the preceding paragraphs “1” through 56″ of this
Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
58. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agents
servants and or employees had actual knowledge that the horse had
suffered from rotation and was, therefore, not sound.
59. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant Patricia Griffith, had actual knowledge that
the horse had suffered from rotation and was, therefore, not sound.
60. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. D/b/a Heritage Farm its
agents servants and or employees had actual knowledge that the
horse had suffered from rotation and was, therefore, not sound.
61. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agents
servants and or employees had actual knowledge that the horse had
suffered from rotation and was not suitable for competitive
jumping.
62. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant Patricia Griffith, had actual knowledge that
the horse had suffered from rotation and was not sui table for
competitive jumping.
63. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. D/b/a Heritage Farm, its
agents servants and or employees had actual knowledge that the
horse had suffered from rotation and was and was not suitable for
competitive jumping.
64. At and prior . to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agents
servants and or employees, had actual knowledge that the horse had
suffered from rotation and was not suitable for an investment pony.
65. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant Patricia Griffith, had actual knowledge that
the horse had suffered from rotation and was not suitable for an
investment pony.
66. At and prior to the time of the sale of the pony to
Plaintiff, Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm its
agents servants and or employees had actual knowledge that the
horse had suffered from rotation and for an investment pony.
67. Defendants, and each of them fraudulently represented to
Plaintiff that the horse was sound, gentle and suitable for
competitive jumping with actual knowledge of the falsity of these
representations at the time they were made, or in reckless
disregard of their truth or falsity.
68. CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C. is liable for the
fraudulent representations.
69. Defendant, GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, is
liable for the fraudulent representations of Defendant, Patricia
Griffith made within the course and scope of her employment and in
furtherance of the business of Defendant, Heritage Farm.
70. Defendant, GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, is
liable for the fraudulent representations of Andre Dignelli made
within the course and scope of his employment and in furtherance of
the business of Defendant, Heritage Farm.
71. The said representations were made by Defendants and each
of them with the intent to induce Plaintiff to purchase the said
pony, to her detriment.
72. Plaintiff relied on the representations of Christopher B.
Miller, a veterinarian employed by defendant CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER,
DVM. P.C., defendant Patricia Griffith, Andre Dignelli or GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agents servants and or
employees that the horse was sound, suited for competitive jumping,
and a good investment pony, in reliance thereon, purchased the said
horse.
73. The actions of the Defendants and each of them were
intentional, malicious, wilful and in knowing disregard of the
Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of punitive damages
in an amount which exceeds all jurisdictional limits of the lower
courts.
74. As a result of the aforesaid misrepresentations and
fraudulent conduct by Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff has
sustained PAST damages in the sum of $325,000.00 dollars exclusive
of interest, costs and will continue to suffer damages in the
future.
COUNT II
PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS- NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the proceeding paragraphs “1” through “74” of this
Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
76. CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent servant and or
employees failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in
obtaining or communicating information to Plaintiff regarding the
unsoundness, prior injuries and inappropriate disposition of the
horse, Sports Talk, thus supplying false information with regard to
this transaction.
77. CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent servant and or
employees in the course of its business, failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining and communicating
information regarding the horse’s unsoundness and prior injuries
and or condition in performing the pre-purchase examination of the
horse on behalf of Plaintiff.
78. CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent servant and
or employees, in the course of its business in performing the
pre-purchase examination of the said horse, failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining and communicating
information to Plaintiff regarding horse’s unsoundness and prior
injuries and or condition.
79. GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agent
servant and or employees failed to exercise reasonable care or
competence in obtaining or communicating information to Plaintiff
regarding the unsoundness, prior injuries and inappropriate
disposition of the horse, Sports Talk, thus supplying false
information with regard to this transaction.
80. GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agent servant
and or employees in the course of its business, failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining and communicating
information regarding the horse’s unsoundness and prior injuries
and or condition in performing the pre-purchase examination of the
horse on behalf of Plaintiff.
81. GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm its agent servant
and or employees, in the course of its business in performing the
pre-purchase examination of the said horse, failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining and communicating
information to Plaintiff regarding horse’s unsoundness and prior
injuries and or condition.
82. Defendants intended and had actual knowledge that
Plaintiff would rely on information supplied by them regarding the
horse’s soundness, medical condition, suitability for competitive
jumping and as an investment pony in entering into the transaction
to purchase the horse.
83. Plaintiff relied on the representations of GOLDENS BRIDGE
INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, its agent servant and or employees,
CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent servant and or
employees,. Patricia Griffith and Andre Dignelli that the pony was
sound and without rotation, sui table for competitive jumping,
gentle and suitable for a relatively inexperienced rider, and, in
reliance thereon, purchased the said horse.
84. As a result of the aforesaid misrepresentations and
fraudulent conduct by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
sustained damages in the sum of $325,000.00 Three Hundred TwentyFive
Thousand Dollars
COUNT III
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
85. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the proceeding paragraphs ~1″ through ~84” of this
Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
86. Defendant, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent
servant and or employees, failed to exercise the ordinary skill and
knowledge, and to follow the procedures accepted by veterinarians
and veterinary clinics in the community in the following respects:
a. Failing to use due diligence in discovering and gaining
access to the prior medical records of the horse in the course
of a pre-purchase exam.
b. Failing to secure proper authorization to disclose the
horse’s prior medical records and information regarding the
horse’s condition to Plaintiff in the course of conducting a
pre-purchase examination on behalf of Plaintiff.
c. Failing to discover, diagnose and disclose to Plaintiff a
material pre-existing injury, defect or unsoundness in the
horse as part of the pre-purchase exam.
d. Fraudulently failing to disclose to Plaintiff the
unsoundness, injury and physical condition of the said horse,
despite possession of records indicating said condition and
despite actual knowledge of said condition.
e. Failing to perform a proper pre-purchase examination of the
horse, commensurate with the standards and practices of
veterinarians and veterinarian clinics in the area.
87. As a result of the aforesaid conduct by CHRISTOPHER B.
MILLER, DVM. P.C., its agent servant and or employees, Plaintiff
has sustained damages in a sum which exceeds all jurisdictional
limits of the lower courts.
COUNT IV
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm
and PATRICIA GRIFFITH- BREACH OF CONTRACT
88. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the proceeding paragraphs “1” THROUGH “87” of this
Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
89. Plaintiff has been denied the benefit of her bargain in
that she contracted to purchase a sound, gentle horse for the
purpose of competitive jumping and investment, in reality, was sold
an unsound, horse with rotation unable to competitively jump, not
suited for Francesca and a poor investment horse.
90. GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm and PATRICIA
GRIFFITH breached the contract of sale by representing, through its
agents, that the horse was sound and possessed no physical defects,
gentle, suited for competitive jumping when, in fact, the horse was
unsound, suffered from rotation and incapable of competitive
jumping and an unsound investment.
91. As a proximate result of the breach of contract of sale,
plaintiff has suffered damages against Defendant DEFENDANT GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm PATRICIA GRIFFITH in an amount in
excess of $325,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
COUNT V
PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS – VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL
BUSINESS LAW § 349
92. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in the proceeding paragraphs “1” through “91” of this
Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
93. Contracts for the sale of horses are within the purview of
the Unfair Trade Practices, Inc. and Consumer Protection Law, 73
P.S. §201-1 et seq.
94. Plaintiff purchased the horse for personal and investment
purposes.
95. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-2 and§ 201-3, the following are
“unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or
practices”:
a. Representing that goods or services have sponsorship,
approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
quantities that they do not have or that a person has a
sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that
he does not have;
b. Representing that goods are original or new or if they are
deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or
second-hand;
c. Representing that goods or services are of a particular
standard, quality or grade, or that goods or of a particular
style or model if they are of another; and
d. Engaging in any other fraudulent conduct which creates a
likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.
96. Defendants’ representation that the horse sold to
plaintiff was sound and possessed no physical defects and suitable
for competitive jumping, gentle and suitable for Francesca and a
sound investment when, in fact, it was unsound, suffered from
rotation and incapable of competitive jumping, dangerous and
totally unsuitable for competitive jumping and investment
constituted a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.
97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation
of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer damages as set
forth in the preceding allegations of this Complaint.
98. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 the court may, in its
discretion, award up to three times the actual damages sustained
and may provide such additional relief as it deems necessary or
proper.
99. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C.,
its agent servant and or employees, Patricia Griffith and Andre
Dignelli, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$325,000.00, plus interest, costs of this action, treble damages
and attorneys’ fees.
COUNT VI
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm
and PATRICIA GRIFFITH BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the
allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs “1” through “99”
of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length
herein.
101. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm by and
through its agents made an affirmation of fact that the horse was
sound and possessed no physical defects, suitable for competitive
jumping, gentle, without rotation suitable for Francesca and a good
investment pony.
102. The affirmation of facts made by Defendant GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm by and through its agents, Patricia
Griffith and Andre Dignelli in particular related to the horse and
became part of the basis of the bargain.
103. Through the affirmation of fact made by Defendant
GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm, by and through its agents,
an express warranty was created that the horse would conform to the
affirmation and be sound, possessed no physical defects and was
suitable for competitive jumping and investment.
104. When the horse was sold to Plaintiff it was not sound,
suffered from rotation, was not gentle, not suitable for
competitive jumping and not sui table for Francesca, therefore,
Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm breached the
express warranty.
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm’s breach of express warranty the
Plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer damages as set
forth in the preceding allegations of this Complaint in an amount
which exceeds all jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
106. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm in an amount in excess of
$325,000.00, plus interest and costs of this suit.
COUNT VII
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a Heritage Farm
and PATRICIA GRIFFITH- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY
107. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the
allegations contained “1” through “106” in the proceeding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at
length herein.
108. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. is a “merchant” as defined
by 13 P.S.C.A. § 2104 because of one of the following:
a. It deals in goods of the kind involved in this case;
b. By its occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or
skill peculiar to the goods involved in this case; or
c. By its employment as an agent or broker who, by its
occupation, holds itself as having knowledge or skill peculiar
to the goods involved in this case.
109. A warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is
implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant
with respect to the goods of that kind.
110 An implied warranty of merchantability existed in the
transaction involving the sale of the horse because Defendant
GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. was a merchant with respect to goods of that
kind.
111. For goods to be merchantable, they must at least be able
to pass without objection in the trade under the contract
description and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
goods are used.
112. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. breached the implied
warranty of merchantability because the horse is not able to pass
without objection in the trade under the contract description and
is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was to be used.
113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC.’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
the
Plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer damages in a
sum which exceeds all jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC. in an amount in excess of $325,000.00, plus interest
and costs of this suit.
COUNT VIII
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. and PATRICIA GRIFFITH
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
114. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the
allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs “1” through
“113” of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length
herein.
115. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. by and through its agent,
had reason to know that the Plaintiff was purchasing the horse for
the particular purpose of competitive jumping for Francesca and
investment.
116. Defendant GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. had reason to know that the
Plaintiff was relying on the skill and judgment of the seller’s
agent(s) to select and furnish a suitable horse that was sound and
free from rotation, fit for the purpose of competitive jumping for
Francesca and investment.
117. In the transaction involving the sale of the horse to the
Plaintiff, an implied warranty was created that the horse would be
fit for the purpose was sound and free from rotation, fit for the
purpose of competitive jumping for Francesca and investment.
118. Since its purchase, the horse has been unable to
competitive jumping and is useless to Plaintiff for the purpose for
which she purchased it.
119. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant GOLDENS
BRIDGE INC’s. breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose the Plaintiff has suffered and will in the
future suffer damages as set forth in the preceding allegations of
this Complaint in a sum which exceeds all jurisdictional limits of
the lower court.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, BARBARA TICHNER demands a judgment
against the defendants GOLDENS BRIDGE INC. d/b/a HERITAGE FARM,
PATRICIA GRIFFITH and CHRISTOPHER B. MILLER, DVM. P.C., awarding
damages in a sum which exceeds all jurisdictional limits of the
lower courts, with interest, costs and disbursements, punitive
damages and attorneys fees for the above causes of action and for
such other and further relief as to this Court deems just and
proper.
Dated: New York, New York
April 25, 2013
Yours, etc.

BERNSTONE and Grieco, LLP

View Complaint 

View Christopher Miller, DVM. P.C., Answer   

Notice of Motion    

View Heritage Farm Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss    

Exhibit Doc. 8 – Bill of Sale  

Exhibit Doc. 9 – Heritage Farm Invoices 1    

Exhibit Doc. 9 – Heritage Farm Invoices 2 

Affirmation in Opposition 

Affidavit of Plaintiff 

Plaintiff Exhibit – Veterinary Report prepared by Dr. Christopher Miller

Defendant’s Reply Affidavit 

Defendant’s Exhibit

Plaintiff Demand for Discovery and Inspection    

Defendants Goldens Bridge Inc. (Heritage Farm / Patricia Griffith) Verified Answer

Defendants Goldens Bridge Inc. (Heritage Farm / Patricia Griffith) Amended Answer   

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion Supporting Documents

Defendant Christopher Miller, DVM. P.C., Notice of Cross Motion & Supporting Exhibits  

Defendant Goldens Bridge Inc. (Heritage Farm / Patricia Griffith) Opposition to Motion & Supporting Exhibits   

Stipulation of Adjournment

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Affirmation in Opposition to Cross-Motion    

Platintiff’s Exhibit – Bill of Particulars   

 

September 2016 Order  

Pony Mom Sues Heritage Farm for Alleged Pre-Purchase Cover Up

Heritage Farm Motion to Dismiss Denied in Alleged Pony Sale Cover-Up