Florence v. Merchants Central Alarm Co.

73 A.D.2d 869, 423 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9770
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 869 (Florence v. Merchants Central Alarm Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florence v. Merchants Central Alarm Co., 73 A.D.2d 869, 423 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 3, 1978, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion for summary judgment is granted limiting defendant’s liability to $50, and judgment may be entered for that amount, with interest, and without costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with defendant Merchants whereby the latter installed a police alarm transmitter to be connected to a burglar alarm system furnished by another entity not a party to the action. The agreement [870]*870provided that defendant’s liability was limited to $50 as liquidated damages, in the event the system failed to work properly. Thereafter, the system malfunctioned and a burglary occurred, as a result of which plaintiffs suffered substantial loss. This suit to recover the loss followed. Thereupon defendant moved to limit its liability to the sum of $50 and for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs for that amount. Special Term denied the motion. We have hitherto indicated that a clause such as that contained in the contract now before us which limited the liability of the installer was effective to bar greater liability on the part of the defendant than that specified in the agreement between the parties (H. G. Metals v Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 45 AD2d 490). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted to the extent sought by defendant. Settle order. Concur— Bloom, J. P., Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.

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

Related

Hancock v. City of New York
164 Misc. 2d 122 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Tri-Plex Security Alarm Systems
622 A.2d 1086 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1992)
Tate v. Clancy-Cullen Storage Co.
178 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Schrier v. Beltway Alarm Co.
533 A.2d 1316 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1987)
Advance Burglar Alarm Systems, Inc. v. D'Auria
110 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Dubovsky & Sons, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
89 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
General Bargain Center v. American Alarm Co.
430 N.E.2d 407 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.2d 869, 423 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-v-merchants-central-alarm-co-nyappdiv-1980.