In Huppe v. Twenty-First Century Rests., 130 Misc 2d 736, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a trier of fact could find that the coffee was so hot that it exceeded the reasonable or customary standards for such a product, and consequently the Huppe plaintiffs' claims for defective or negligently served coffee were dismissed. Furthermore, because "the hotness of the coffee was such an essential and intended attribute of the product ... defendant had a duty to warn of its temperature only if it exceeded the reasonable range of temperature for such a product" ( Huppe, supra, at 739). As there was no evidence that the coffee in Huppe was hotter than contemplated by plaintiffs therein, the Huppe court found no duty to warn.