Legal Opinion
Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 23, 1983PublishedCited by 76 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint and to reinstate the complaint in its entirety and, as so modified, should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
Justice Sandler’s analysis (85 AD2d 448, 457) of our holding in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc. (43 NY2d 389; see, also, Steiner v Wenning, 43 NY2d 831; Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669) is correct: an action for failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract insofar as it seeks recovery for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- In re the Arbitration between Paver & Wildfoerster & Catholic High School Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Gilbert Properties, Inc. v. MillsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Steiner v. WenningNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Murphy v. KuhnNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Chase Scientific Research, Inc. v. Nia Group, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Baratta v. KozlowskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.