only his or her immediate seller with whom the consumer is in privity.”). Plaintiffs contend that they have satisfied any privity requirement by pleading that Iovate warranted the Products through retailers “through the doctrine of agency.” (FAC ¶ 242.) According to the FAC, “[t]he Retailer Defendants ... further enabled Iovate and MuscleTech to make representations concerning the quality of the Products” by advertising and selling the Products. (FAC ¶ 48.) Privity between a plaintiff and the manufacturer of a product can be satisfied by establishing that the direct seller of the product was acting as an agent for the manufacturer of the product. See, e.g., Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, LLP v. Isolatek Int’l Corp., 300 A.D.2d 1051, 1052, 752 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y.App.Div.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, Plaintiffs’ allegations of
holding no issue of material fact as to whether defendant was volunteer because he received no compensation recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest holding cause of action for negligence against manufacturer of defective buses was barred by the economic loss rule notwithstanding absence of privity holding that there was a triable issue of fact whether a defendant who applied a sprayon fireproofing material was an agent for the manufacturer of the material and thus whether plaintiff is in privity with the manufacturer holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment