In Vernon v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp. (118 A.D.2d 698, 700 [2d Dept 1986]), the Second Department awarded the buyer a refund of the purchase price, together with "expenses in connection with financing the purchase" as incidental damages. The Court refused other damages, however, including rental and storage charges, because they were not sufficiently tied to the breach, and because the dealer "was never given the opportunity to repair, or replace, or accept a return of the vehicle." (Id. at 700.) It appears that the loss of use claim related to a period of time after the buyer revoked acceptance of the vehicle. The decision may be considered vestiges of the election of remedies doctrine, or simply as holding that, under such circumstances, loss of use does not constitute incidental or consequential damages.