Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc.
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2007Rodriguez v. Central Parking System of New York, Inc. N.Y. App. Term
- 2006Thompson & Bailey, LLC v. Whitmore Group, Ltd. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2005Rodriguez v. Central Parking System of New York, Inc. N.Y. Civ. Ct.
- 2001Chase Scientific Research, Inc. v. Nia Group, Inc. N.Y.
- 2000Schweizer v. Mulvehill S.D.N.Y.
- 2000Gebhardt v. Allspect, Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 2000Matthews & Fields Lumber Co. v. New England Insurance W.D.N.Y.
- 2000Chase Scientific Research, Inc. v. NIA Group, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2000Morse Diesel International v. CNA Insurance Companies N.Y. App. Div.
- 1998Ruffolo v. Garbarini N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 6 cases
- Gilbert Properties, Inc. v. Millstein
- In re the Arbitration between Paver & Wildfoerster & Catholic High School Ass'n
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.
- Steiner v. Wenning
- Topal v. Exclusive Envelope Corp.
- Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Video Corporation of America, Formerly Known as Teletronics International, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc., Respondent-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- Andrew C. Jacobson for appellant-respondent.
- Andrew R. Simmonds and Robert E. Meshel for respondent-appellant.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint and to reinstate the complaint in its entirety and, as so modified, should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
Justice Sandler’s analysis (85 AD2d 448, 457) of our holding in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc. (43 NY2d 389; see, also, Steiner v Wenning, 43 NY2d 831; Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669) is correct: an action for failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract insofar as it seeks recovery for damages to property or pecuniary interests recoverable in a contract action is governed by the six-year contract Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 2). To the extent that Gilbert Props. v Millstein (33 NY2d 857) and Adler & Topal v Exclusive Envelope Corp. (84 AD2d 365) are to the contrary they should not be followed.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Question certified answered in the negative.