Kitz Corp. v. Transcon Shipping Specialists, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Kitz Corp. v. Transcon Shipping Specialists, Inc.

675 N.E.2d 455, 89 N.Y.2d 822, 652 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3168

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 14, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 675 N.E.2d 455 (Kitz Corp. v. Transcon Shipping Specialists, Inc.) 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

Kitz Corp. v. Transcon Shipping Specialists, Inc., 675 N.E.2d 455, 89 N.Y.2d 822, 652 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

*823 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Kitz Corp., a fine arts collector in Japan, purchased a lamp valued at $886,000 from Christie, Manson and Woods auction house in New York City. Christie’s hired Transcon Shipping Specialists to crate the lamp in preparation for its shipment to Japan, and employed Radix Group International to arrange for its delivery. Radix engaged the services of appellant, J & J Air Freight Trucking Co., to transport the lamp from Transcon’s facility in the Bronx to the Nippon Cargo Airways terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens.

The lamp arrived in Japan damaged. Kitz, through its insurer, sued Transcon for breach of contract and negligence, and Transcon in turn sought contribution from Radix, J & J and Nippon. J & J moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that its liability to Transcon was limited to $50 in accordance with its contract of carriage with Radix.

The issue being whether the $50 limitation of liability binds Transcon, and there being no other issue before us regarding J & J’s liability on Transcon’s third-party action, we agree that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Transcon had no contract with J & J, had no ongoing relationship with J & J, and played no part in its selection. There was no proof that Transcon was aware of the limitation contained in J & J’s contract of carriage with Radix. J & J’s limitation of liability clause therefore cannot be enforced against Transcon. That Nippon’s liability may be limited to $671.18 by reason of the Warsaw Convention, applicable to international transportation, is immaterial to J & J’s intrastate shipment and to the resolution of the narrow legal issue presented to us on this certified question appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

*823 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Kitz Corp., a fine arts collector in Japan, purchased a lamp valued at $886,000 from Christie, Manson and Woods auction house in New York City. Christie’s hired Transcon Shipping Specialists to crate the lamp in preparation for its shipment to Japan, and employed Radix Group International to arrange for its delivery. Radix engaged the services of appellant, J & J Air Freight Trucking Co., to transport the lamp from Transcon’s facility in the Bronx to the Nippon Cargo Airways terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens.

The lamp arrived in Japan damaged. Kitz, through its insurer, sued Transcon for breach of contract and negligence, and Transcon in turn sought contribution from Radix, J & J and Nippon. J & J moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that its liability to Transcon was limited to $50 in accordance with its contract of carriage with Radix.

The issue being whether the $50 limitation of liability binds Transcon, and there being no other issue before us regarding J & J’s liability on Transcon’s third-party action, we agree that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Transcon had no contract with J & J, had no ongoing relationship with J & J, and played no part in its selection. There was no proof that Transcon was aware of the limitation contained in J & J’s contract of carriage with Radix. J & J’s limitation of liability clause therefore cannot be enforced against Transcon. That Nippon’s liability may be limited to $671.18 by reason of the Warsaw Convention, applicable to international transportation, is immaterial to J & J’s intrastate shipment and to the resolution of the narrow legal issue presented to us on this certified question appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 N.E.2d 455, 89 N.Y.2d 822, 652 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitz-corp-v-transcon-shipping-specialists-inc-ny-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack