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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 2014·No. 13052 653947/12·Published

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.

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

120 A.D.3d 1150 (Midwest Goldbuyers, Inc. v. Brink's Global Services USA, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related