Midtown Distributors Corp. v. Mutual Central Alarm Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midtown Distributors Corp. v. Mutual Central Alarm Services, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 346, 852 N.Y.2d 768

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 346 (Midtown Distributors Corp. v. Mutual Central Alarm Services, 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

Midtown Distributors Corp. v. Mutual Central Alarm Services, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 346, 852 N.Y.2d 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s claims that defendant burglar alarm company installed a different alarm system and a different number of sensors than provided in the parties’ contract, and failed to determine that the alarm had been tripped by burglars rather than birds, are barred by the exculpatory clause in the contract (see Sue & Sam Mfg. Co. v United Protective Alarm Sys., 119 AD2d 664 [1986]; Nuri Farhardi, Inc. v Albany Ins. Co., 137 AD2d 429 [1988]). Plaintiff does not allege such gross negligence as would avoid the exculpatory clause (cf. Hartford Ins. Co. v Holmes Protection Group, 250 AD2d 526, 527-528 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Plaintiff’s claims that defendant burglar alarm company installed a different alarm system and a different number of sensors than provided in the parties’ contract, and failed to determine that the alarm had been tripped by burglars rather than birds, are barred by the exculpatory clause in the contract (see Sue & Sam Mfg. Co. v United Protective Alarm Sys., 119 AD2d 664 [1986]; Nuri Farhardi, Inc. v Albany Ins. Co., 137 AD2d 429 [1988]). Plaintiff does not allege such gross negligence as would avoid the exculpatory clause (cf. Hartford Ins. Co. v Holmes Protection Group, 250 AD2d 526, 527-528 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 346, 852 N.Y.2d 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midtown-distributors-corp-v-mutual-central-alarm-services-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack