unable to prevail on an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs waived any of the breaches.”) In sum, the Court holds that NSA has established the requisite reliance for a claim of breach of express warranty by demonstrating the existence of the express warranties in the SPA, and finds that even if SeraNova had raised its waiver argu ment in a timely fashion — which it did not — the argument would have failed. B. Damages SeraNova belatedly argues that NSA must prove it suffered actual damages as a result of SeraNova’s alleged breach, and that NSA has failed to show such damages. SeraNova raised this argument for the first time in its surreply. In support of this argument, SeraNova relies on LNC Investments, Inc. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A. New Jersey, 173 F.3d 454, 465 (2nd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Cramer v. Spada, 203 A.D.2d 739, 610
recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action  holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration