The motion court correctly determined that the transaction was not a sale of goods falling within the coverage of article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and thus properly found inapplicable its provision for a right to demand assurances (UCC 2-609).
Nor is there any right to demand assurances recognized under the common law ( Schenectady Steel Co. v. Trimpoli Gen. Constr. Co., 43 A.D.2d 234, 236, affd on other grounds 34 N.Y.2d 939; Encogen Four Partners v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 914 F. Supp. 57, question certified sub nom. Norcon Power Partners v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 110 F.3d 6; 2 Farnsworth, Contracts § 8.23, at 487 [1990 ed]).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find that they do not warrant a different result.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.