Midwest Goldbuyers, Inc. v. Brink's Global Services USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midwest Goldbuyers, Inc. v. Brink's Global Services USA, Inc.

120 A.D.3d 1150, 992 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

Docket13052 653947/12

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1150 (Midwest Goldbuyers, Inc. v. Brink's Global Services USA, 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

Midwest Goldbuyers, Inc. v. Brink's Global Services USA, Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1150, 992 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 6, 2013, which, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first two breach of contract claims, and the negligence claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claims arising from transactions that occurred more than one year before the filing of the instant suit in New York are time-barred under the one-year contractual limitations period. The IAS court correctly held that plaintiffs prior action in Illinois was not a “prior action” for purposes of the six-month toll in CPLR 205 (a) (Lehman Bros. v Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 245 AD2d 203, 203 [1st Dept 1997], affd 92 NY2d 1014 [1998]). Further, the IAS court properly dismissed the claim for negligence as to all transactions, as plaintiff failed to allege any breach of duty independent of the parties’ contracts (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 6, 2013, which, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first two breach of contract claims, and the negligence claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claims arising from transactions that occurred more than one year before the filing of the instant suit in New York are time-barred under the one-year contractual limitations period. The IAS court correctly held that plaintiffs prior action in Illinois was not a “prior action” for purposes of the six-month toll in CPLR 205 (a) (Lehman Bros. v Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 245 AD2d 203, 203 [1st Dept 1997], affd 92 NY2d 1014 [1998]). Further, the IAS court properly dismissed the claim for negligence as to all transactions, as plaintiff failed to allege any breach of duty independent of the parties’ contracts (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1150, 992 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midwest-goldbuyers-inc-v-brinks-global-services-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack