Tunick v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tunick v. Goldstein

226 A.D.2d 705, 642 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 705 (Tunick v. Goldstein) 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

Tunick v. Goldstein, 226 A.D.2d 705, 642 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 2, 1995, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their causes of action alleging negligence by the defendant, since the allegations of purportedly negligent acts constitute nothing more than allegations of a breach of contract (see, 431 Conklin Corp. v Rice, 181 AD2d 716). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 2, 1995, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their causes of action alleging negligence by the defendant, since the allegations of purportedly negligent acts constitute nothing more than allegations of a breach of contract (see, 431 Conklin Corp. v Rice, 181 AD2d 716). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 705, 642 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tunick-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack