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

74 Citing briefs

  1. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, et al., Respondents,v.Samson Construction Co.,, et al., Defendants, Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., Appellant.-------------------------------(And other actions)

    Brief

    Filed January 4, 2018

    Damages sought under a tort theory that “were clearly within the contemplation of the written agreement,” as is the case here, are the precise type of damages that this Court said in Clark-Fitzpatrick do not give rise to separate tort claims in breach of contract actions. 70 N.Y.2d at 390, 521 N.Y.S.2d at 657. As these facts   29   demonstrate, DASNY is seeking nothing more than “to enforce its bargain.”

  2. BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America N.A.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 115 MOTION to Dismiss CERTAIN CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS.. Document

    Filed January 15, 2013

    This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract.” Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d at 389 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs have alleged no such duty and none exists.

  3. In the Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation.---------------------------------Stanislaw Faltynowicz, et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant,v.Battery Park City Authority, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------Santiago Alvear, Appellant, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.---------------------------------Peter Curley et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed January 27, 2017

    Id. § 1981(1); see also Clark- Fitzpatrick, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d at 387 (similar language in enabling legislation “inexorably” led to conclusion that authority performed “essential public function”). Thus, even if a particularized inquiry into BPCA’s status or activities were appropriate here—and it is not—such an inquiry would reinforce rather than rebut the premise that BPCA is a public entity created by the Legislature to serve public ends.

  4. In the Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation.---------------------------------Stanislaw Faltynowicz, et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant,v.Battery Park City Authority, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------Santiago Alvear, Appellant, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.---------------------------------Peter Curley et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed January 27, 2017

    In those cases, however, the Court was balancing the privileges of a public-benefit corporation against the interests of private entities—not against the Legislature’s constitutional authority. E.g., Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388 (1987) (holding that the Long Island Railroad Company was immune from punitive damages in a lawsuit brought by private company); John Grace & Co. v. State Univ. Constr.

  5. In the Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation.---------------------------------Stanislaw Faltynowicz, et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant,v.Battery Park City Authority, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------Santiago Alvear, Appellant, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.---------------------------------Peter Curley et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed January 27, 2017

    The United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court: (1) Before New York State’s capacity-to-sue doctrine may be applied to determine whether a State-created public benefit corporation has the capacity to challenge a State statute, must it first be determined whether the public benefit corporation “should be treated like the State,” see Clark–Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., [70 N.Y.2d 382, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653] 516 N.E.2d 190, 192 ([ ]1987), based on a “particularized inquiry into the nature of the instrumentality and the statute claimed to be applicable to it,” see John Grace & Co. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, [44 N.Y.2d 84, 404 N.Y.S.2d 316] 375 N.E.2d 377, 379 ([ ]1978), and if so, what considerations are relevant to that inquiry?; and (2) Does the “serious injustice” standard articulated in Gallewski v. H. Hentz & Co., [301 N.Y. 164] 93 N.E.2d 620 ([ ]1950), or the less stringent “reasonableness” standard articulated in Robinson v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., [238 N.Y. 271] 144 N.E. 579 (1924), govern the merits of a due process challenge under the New York State Constitution to a claim-revival statute?   2 6674056v.3 In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig., 846 F.3d 58, 60–61 (2d Cir. 2017).

  6. Series S Portfolio et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 46 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. . Document

    Filed May 1, 2015

    See Clark-Fitzpatrick, 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388 (1987). In all events, Plaintiffs damages are barred by New York’s economic loss rule, which precludes recovery of economic losses in tort to “keep contract law from drown[ing] in a sea of tort.

  7. Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) et al v. HSBC Bank USA

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 42 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. MOTION to Strike Document No. 1 as to Consequential Damages. . Document

    Filed January 23, 2015

    AG Capital Funding Partners, 866 N.Y.S.2d at 584; Ellington, 837 F. Supp. 2d at 192-93 (dismissing breach of fiduciary duty claim as duplicative); id. at 200-01 (dismissing negligent misrepresentation claim as duplicative). Here, Plaintiffs’ non-contract claims also fail because they simply restate Plaintiffs’ contract claims. Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc., 521 N.Y.S.2d at 657. The contract claims are virtually mirror images of Plaintiffs’ other claims. Royal Park: Royal Park’s breach of trust claim that HSBC failed to act prudently in the face of Events of Default restates its contract claim: Royal Park Contract Claim: “[P]laintiff . . . did not receive the benefit of [its] bargain, to wit, that HSBC would act as a prudent person . . . when HSBC knew of Events of Default.” RP Compl

  8. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, et al., Respondents,v.Samson Construction Co.,, et al., Defendants, Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., Appellant.-------------------------------(And other actions)

    Brief

    Filed January 4, 2018

    Contract and tort claims are not always mutually exclusive; to the contrary, this Court has been clear that a tort duty “may be connected with and dependent upon [a] contract.” Clark- Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389 (1987). 30 Thus, one set of facts may give rise to both types of claims, particularly where, as here, the public interest is implicated.

  9. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, et al., Respondents,v.Samson Construction Co.,, et al., Defendants, Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., Appellant.-------------------------------(And other actions)

    Brief

    Filed January 4, 2018

    Because the damages sought “were clearly within the contemplation of the written agreement,” they should not give rise to a separate tort claim in a breach of contract action. Clark- Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 390, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 657 (1987). Finally, on the issue of damages, DASNY spends the last few pages of its brief addressing the claimed inapplicability of the economic loss rule to a tort claim based on breach of a professional duty.5 But Perkins does not cite to or rely on the rule.

  10. In the Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation.---------------------------------Stanislaw Faltynowicz, et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant,v.Battery Park City Authority, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------Santiago Alvear, Appellant, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.---------------------------------Peter Curley et al., Appellants, State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed January 27, 2017

    at 11), and that “‘a particularized inquiry is necessary to determine whether—for the specific purpose at issue—the public benefit corporation should be treated like the State’” (id. at 13 (quoting Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 387 (1987))). 5 No particularized inquiry is required, however, where the “specific purpose at issue” is an attempt by a public authority to assert due process rights against the Legislature.