Genesee Valley Club v. Walter Kidde & Co.

177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 1051 (Genesee Valley Club v. Walter Kidde & 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
Genesee Valley Club v. Walter Kidde & Co., 177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendants, Walter Kidde & Company, Inc. (Kidde) and Mealane Corp. (Mealane), are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence and strict products liability causes of action. Plaintiff’s losses are purely economic and are, therefore, not recoverable [1052]*1052under either tort theory (see, Schiavone Constr. Co. v Mayo Corp., 56 NY2d 667, revg 81 AD2d 221 on dissenting opn [Silverman, J.]; Arell’s Fine Jewelers v Honeywell, Inc., 170 AD2d 1013; Graham v Rockwell Inti. Corp., 135 AD2d 1128; Hemming v Certainteed Corp., 97 AD2d 976, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 758). Even assuming that plaintiff's damages are attributable to the deterioration or breakdown of the fire suppression systems, "the injury is properly characterized as 'economic loss’ and plaintiff is relegated to contractual remedies” (Hemming v Certainteed Corp., supra; see also, Arell’s Fine Jewelers v Honeywell, Inc., supra; Richman v Albert, 127 AD2d 992, Iv denied 70 NY2d 745). Because plaintiff’s negligence and strict products liability causes of action must be dismissed, the cross claims asserted against Kidde and Mealane for contribution must also be dismissed since "[t]he existence of tort liability is a prerequisite to any claim for contribution” (Arell’s Fine Jewelers v Honeywell, Inc., supra, at 1014, citing Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21, 27-28). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Livingston v. Klein
256 A.D.2d 1214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. R. Maurice Associates, Inc.
188 A.D.2d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genesee-valley-club-v-walter-kidde-co-nyappdiv-1991.