Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road

Holding that, where plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to exercise "due care" in the design of a railroad project, plaintiff's negligence allegations were "merely a restatement, albeit in slightly different language, of the 'implied' contractual obligations asserted in the cause of action for breach of contract. Moreover, the damages plaintiff allegedly sustained as a consequence of defendant's violation of a 'duty of due care' in designing the project were clearly within contemplation of the written agreement."

Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.

Holding that, in New York, "a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct" through an exculpatory clause

State of California v. Shearman Sterling

Holding that a party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish " the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, that the contract was intended for his benefit and that the benefit to him is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate him if the benefit is lost." (quoting Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 336 (1983))

Ossining School v. Anderson

Holding that in negligent misrepresentation cases, the relationship between the parties must "be one of contract or the bond between them so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity"

Fourth Ocean v. Interstate

Holding that a party other than the contracting parties may enforce a contract only where "the language of the contract . . . clearly evidences an intent to permit enforcement by the third party"

Hamlet at Willow v. Northeast

Rejecting plaintiff's attempt to apply the tripartite standard to a contract claim because plaintiff's claim "[was] not premised upon a negligent misrepresentation"

Port Chester Elec. v. Atlas

Holding that action would be considered a special proceeding as to fraudulent transferees where plaintiff sued contract debtor as well as fraudulent transferees in plenary action

Brushton-Moira Cent. v. Thomas

Holding that "the appropriate measure of damages [for breach of a construction contract] is the cost to repair the defects or, if the defects are not remediable, the difference in value between a properly constructed structure and that which was in fact built"

LaSalle National Bank v. Ernst Young

Dismissing breach of contract claim because "[t]he pleadings do not set forth any basis upon which we could construe the existence of third-party rights and that plaintiffs were intended to be the third-party beneficiaries"

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.

Holding only that "claims by owners against architects arising out of the performance or nonperformance of obligations under contracts between them are governed by the . . . contract statute of limitations whether verbalized as in tort . . . or contract," but not reaching question of whether economic loss may be recovered in tort action

Section 500.1 - General requirements