Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. v. Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. v. Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

252 A.D.2d 573, 675 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8629

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 573 (Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. v. Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) 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

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. v. Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 573, 675 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc., appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated January 29, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Riverhead Central School District which was to dismiss the first and third cross claims of Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc., against it, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 5, 1997, which, upon reargument, dismissed the second cross claim.

Ordered that the order dated January 29, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 5, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Riverhead Central School District is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the first and third cross claims asserted by the defendant Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (hereinafter Britelite), against the defendant Riverhead Central School District, since Britelite [574]*574failed to serve the requisite notice of claim (see, Education Law § 3813 [1], [2-a]). The third cross claim, alleging breach of the contract between Britelite and the school district, was barred on the further ground that it was untimely, having been asserted more than three years after the claim accrued (see, Education Law § 3813 [1], [2-b]). The second cross claim, seeking indemnity or contribution from the school district, failed to state a cause of action. The complaint and cross claims seek damages for economic loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract, and present no issue of tort liability. Therefore, a claim for contribution or indemnity is legally untenable (see, CPLR 1401; Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21; Wecker v Quaderer, 237 AD2d 512; Politte v Sherman, 168 AD2d 761; Dormitory Auth. v Scott, 160 AD2d 179).

Britelite’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc., appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated January 29, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Riverhead Central School District which was to dismiss the first and third cross claims of Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc., against it, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 5, 1997, which, upon reargument, dismissed the second cross claim.

Ordered that the order dated January 29, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 5, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Riverhead Central School District is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the first and third cross claims asserted by the defendant Britelite Electric, Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (hereinafter Britelite), against the defendant Riverhead Central School District, since Britelite [574]*574failed to serve the requisite notice of claim (see, Education Law § 3813 [1], [2-a]). The third cross claim, alleging breach of the contract between Britelite and the school district, was barred on the further ground that it was untimely, having been asserted more than three years after the claim accrued (see, Education Law § 3813 [1], [2-b]). The second cross claim, seeking indemnity or contribution from the school district, failed to state a cause of action. The complaint and cross claims seek damages for economic loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract, and present no issue of tort liability. Therefore, a claim for contribution or indemnity is legally untenable (see, CPLR 1401; Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 NY2d 21; Wecker v Quaderer, 237 AD2d 512; Politte v Sherman, 168 AD2d 761; Dormitory Auth. v Scott, 160 AD2d 179).

Britelite’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 573, 675 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/land-air-water-environmental-services-inc-v-britelite-electric-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack