AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

442 N.E.2d 1268, 57 N.Y.2d 912, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3780
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 442 N.E.2d 1268 (AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 442 N.E.2d 1268, 57 N.Y.2d 912, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3780 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

opinion of the court

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (20 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order of the Appellate Division modified, with costs to defendants, by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it seeks damages for loss of profit, and as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.

Questions of fact exist as to whether defendants’ representatives intended their statements to be opinions or positive statements of present intention, and as to whether plaintiff’s claims are time barred.

The issue of whether a “special relationship” exists sufficient to make out a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation should also be left to the finder of fact (White v Guarente, 43 NY2d 356; International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., 244 NY 331; Coolite Corp. v American Cyan-amid Co., 52 AD2d 486; see, also, Restatement, Torts 2d, § 552).

As for damages, the rule in this State is that all elements of profit are excluded from a computation of damages in an action grounded in fraud (Reno v Bull, 226 NY 546).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), *915 order modified, with costs to defendants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Global Granite Sales Corp. v. Sabovic
2018 NY Slip Op 7414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
75 N.E.3d 1159 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)
King County v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG
863 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Murphy v. LaFramboise Group, Ltd.
42 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Solutia Inc. v. FMC Corp.
456 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Lazard Debt Recovery GP, LLC. v. Weinstock
864 A.2d 955 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2004)
Knight Securities, L.P. v. Fiduciary Trust Co.
5 A.D.3d 172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Losquadro v. Gerrard
276 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Whitney Holdings, Ltd. v. Givotovsky
988 F. Supp. 732 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Ben-Reuven v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.
241 A.D.2d 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re PaineWebber Ltd. Partnerships Litigation
171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.
668 N.E.2d 1370 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation
918 F. Supp. 749 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Three Crown Ltd. Partnership v. SALOMON BROS. INC.
906 F. Supp. 876 (S.D. New York, 1995)
First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding, Corp.
820 F. Supp. 89 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
792 F. Supp. 244 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Lawrence v. Houston
172 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Pappas v. Harrow Stores, Inc.
140 A.D.2d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
442 N.E.2d 1268, 57 N.Y.2d 912, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/afa-protective-systems-inc-v-american-telephone-telegraph-co-ny-1982.