662 N.Y.S.2d 584 (N.Y.1997); Armco Steel Corp. v. Isaacson Structural Steel Co., 611 P.2d 507, 513 (Alaska 1980). 4. Privity Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ breach of express and implied warranty claims under Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and New York law and Plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim under Arizona law also fail because Plaintiffs have failed to plead privity between Iovate and Plaintiffs. Under Georgia law, privity is required to maintain an action for breach of express or implied warranty. Dunant v. Wilmock, Inc., 176 Ga.App. 48, 335 S.E.2d 162, 163 (1985). Under the laws of Alabama, Florida, and New York, it appears that privity is required in implied warranty cases only. See Jesmer v. Retail Magic, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 171, 185-86, 863 N.Y.S.2d 737 (N.Y.App.Div.2008) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 663 F.Supp.2d
holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding that lower court erred in dismissing express warranty claim but properly granted motion to dismiss implied warranty claims due to lack of privity between the plaintiff an enduser of a pos system and the manufacturer of the system