Consumers Distributing Co. v. Baker Protective Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consumers Distributing Co. v. Baker Protective Services, Inc.

202 A.D.2d 327, 609 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2698

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 1994·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the failure of defendant’s employee on two occasions to respond to a signal indicating a possible burglary despite hourly noise reminders, while clearly ordinary negligence, was not gross negligence, i.e, "conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” (Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 823-824, quoting Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 554), and that the contract [328] clause limiting defendant’s liability from its own negligence is therefore enforceable (compare, Stuart Rudnick, Inc. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 194 AD2d 317). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the failure of defendant’s employee on two occasions to respond to a signal indicating a possible burglary despite hourly noise reminders, while clearly ordinary negligence, was not gross negligence, i.e, "conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” (Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 823-824, quoting Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 554), and that the contract [328] clause limiting defendant’s liability from its own negligence is therefore enforceable (compare, Stuart Rudnick, Inc. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 194 AD2d 317). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Consumers Distributing Co. v. Baker Protective Services, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 327, 609 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 327 (Consumers Distributing Co. v. Baker Protective Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related