From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Video Corporation of America v. Flatto Associates

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1983)

Summary

In Video Corp. of America v. Flatto Associates, 58 N.Y.2d 1026, 462 N.Y.S.2d 439, 448 N.E.2d 1350 (1983), the New York Court of Appeals held that notwithstanding the absence of a formal or written contract between the parties, the six year statute of limitations applied "insofar as [the action] seeks recovery for damages to property or pecuniary interests."

Summary of this case from Cohen v. Goodfriend

Opinion

Argued February 17, 1983

Decided March 23, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ANDREW R. TYLER, J.

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 A.D.2d 448, 457) of our holding in Sears, Roebuck Co. v Enco Assoc. ( 43 N.Y.2d 389; see, also, Steiner v Wenning, 43 N.Y.2d 831; Matter of Paver Wildfoerster [ Catholic High School Assn.], 38 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 857) and Adler Topal v Exclusive Envelope Corp. ( 84 A.D.2d 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.


Summaries of

Video Corporation of America v. Flatto Associates

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1983)

In Video Corp. of America v. Flatto Associates, 58 N.Y.2d 1026, 462 N.Y.S.2d 439, 448 N.E.2d 1350 (1983), the New York Court of Appeals held that notwithstanding the absence of a formal or written contract between the parties, the six year statute of limitations applied "insofar as [the action] seeks recovery for damages to property or pecuniary interests."

Summary of this case from Cohen v. Goodfriend

In Video Corp., the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the restrictive manner in which three departments of the Appellate Division had interpreted Sears. All three cases had concluded that the Sears holding applied to only written contracts containing explicit promises to achieve a specific result.

Summary of this case from Klock v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc.

In Video, we determined that to the extent our decision in Gilbert Props. v Millstein (33 N.Y.2d 857), which applied the three-year Statute of Limitations to a legal malpractice action, differed with our holding in that case, it should not be followed.

Summary of this case from Santulli v. Englert Reilly

In Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Assoc., Inc., 58 N.Y.2d 1026, 462 N.Y.S.2d 439, 448 N.E.2d 1350 (1983), the Court of Appeals restated its rule under Sears, Roebuck and Paver and expressly adopted the dissenting opinion of a judge from the lower court who had argued that the rule of Paver applied broadly to all actions having their genesis in contract where the damages claimed arose from injury to pecuniary or property interests.

Summary of this case from Blumberg v. Touche Ross Co.

In Video Corp. v Flatto Assoc. (58 N.Y.2d 1026, 1028), the Court of Appeals held that "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)."

Summary of this case from Sinopoli v. Cocozza

In Video, however, the Court of Appeals made it clear that an action for failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract insofar as it seeks recovery for damages to pecuniary interests (as distinguished, e.g., from injury to the person) may be brought in contract whether or not the contract was for a specific result.

Summary of this case from Allied Intl Bancorp v. Peat
Case details for

Video Corporation of America v. Flatto Associates

Case Details

Full title:VIDEO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Formerly Known as TELETRONICS INTERNATIONAL…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 1983

Citations

58 N.Y.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1983)
462 N.Y.S.2d 439
448 N.E.2d 1350

Citing Cases

Santulli v. Englert Reilly

The Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's order, dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract…

Santulli v. Englert, Reilly

We conclude, nonetheless, that the action is not time barred. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that an…