Salesian Soc. v. Formigli Corp.

306 A.2d 466, 124 N.J. Super. 270
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided June 15, 1973·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

124 N.J. Super. 270 (1973)
306 A.2d 466

SALESIAN SOCIETY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FORMIGLI CORPORATION, EDWARD REIHL COMPANY, INC. AND WILLIAM REIHL AND EILEEN REIHL WOJTECKI, INDIVIDUALLY AS THE LAST OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF EDWARD REIHL COMPANY, INC., A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 30, 1973.
Decided June 15, 1973.

*271 Before Judges KOLOVSKY, MATTHEWS and CRAHAY.

Mr. William F. Tuohey argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Milton, Keane & Brady, attorneys; Mr. Prospero DeBona on the brief).

Mr. Frank R. Cinquina argued the cause for defendants-respondents Reihl and Wojtecki (Messrs. Schwartz and Andolino, attorneys; Mr. Edward R. Schwartz, of counsel).

Mr. John W. Reinman argued the cause for defendant-respondent Formigli Corporation.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from summary judgments entered in favor of defendants in its action for money damages which was grounded in breach of contract, negligence and breach of warranty.

The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of Judge Botter which is reported at 120 N.J. Super. 493 (Law Div. 1972), and need not be repeated. We affirm essentially for the reasons given by Judge Botter and add only that we are not persuaded by plaintiff's argument that the statute is not operative here since the cause of action was grounded in part in breach of warranty and strict liability in tort. The act by its operative terms provides — "no action whether in contract, in tort, or otherwise * * * shall be brought * * * more than ten years after * * * performance * * * construction." We are satisfied then that N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 limits any action encompassed within it regardless of its genesis or label.

Affirmed.

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

Salesian Soc. v. Formigli Corp., 306 A.2d 466, 124 N.J. Super. 270 (N.J. Ct. App. 1973).

306 A.2d 466 (Salesian Soc. v. Formigli Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Public Service Electric v. Newport Associates Dev.
365 F. Supp. 3d 506 (D. New Jersey, 2019)
Port Imperial v. Hovnanian Port
17 A.3d 283 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2011)
Cyktor v. Aspen Manor Condominium Ass'n
820 A.2d 129 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2003)
Velez v. WILKERSON ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., NOBE/BCC
796 A.2d 919 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Barnett v. Johnson
839 F. Supp. 236 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Hall v. Luby Corp.
556 A.2d 1317 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Lawrence
740 F.2d 1362 (Third Circuit, 1984)
Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp.
302 S.E.2d 868 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
E. A. Williams, Inc. v. Russo Development Corp.
411 A.2d 697 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980)
Kozikowski v. Delaware River Port Authority
397 F. Supp. 1115 (D. New Jersey, 1975)