AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1982 |
| Citation | 456 N.Y.S.2d 757,57 N.Y.2d 912,442 N.E.2d 1268 |
| Parties | , 442 N.E.2d 1268 AFA PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (20 NYCRR 500.2[g] ), order of the Appellate Division, 86 App.Div.2d 584, 448 N.Y.S.2d 428, modified, with costs to defendants, by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it seeks damages for loss of profit, and as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.
Questions of fact exist as to whether defendants' representatives intended their statements to be opinions or positive statements of present intention, and as to whether plaintiff's claims are time barred.
The issue of whether a "special relationship" exists sufficient to make out a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation should also be left to the finder of fact (White v. Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 401 N.Y.S.2d 474, 372 N.E.2d 315; International Prods. Co. v. Erie R.R. Co., 244 N.Y. 331, 155 N.E. 662; Coolite Corp. v. American Cyanamid Co., 52 A.D.2d 486, 384 N.Y.S.2d 808; see, also, Restatement, Torts 2d, § 552).
As for damages, the rule in this State is that all elements of profit are excluded from a computation of damages in an action grounded in fraud (Reno v. Bull, 226 N.Y. 546, 124 N.E. 144).
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2[g] order modified, with costs to defendants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed. Question certified answered in the negative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Coin Phones, Inc.
...472, 1 N.E.2d 971 (1936), reh'g denied, 271 N.Y. 617, 3 N.E.2d 212 (1936) and AFA Protective Systems Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, 57 N.Y.2d 912, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 442 N.E.2d 1268 (1982). The question of damages will be examined in full below. Suffice it here to state that......
-
Whitney Holdings, Ltd. v. Givotovsky
...23. See Allard v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 924 F.Supp. 488, 493 (S.D.N.Y.1996); AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 57 N.Y.2d 912, 914, 442 N.E.2d 1268, 1269, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 758 (1982) ("the rule in this State is that all elements of profit are excluded from a computa......
-
Three Crown Ltd. Partnership v. SALOMON BROS. INC.
...losses (out-of-pocket losses and consequential damages) and not for future profits. See AFA Protective Systems v. American Tel. & Tel., 57 N.Y.2d 912, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 442 N.E.2d 1268 (1982); Delcor Laboratories, Inc. v. Cosmair, Inc., 169 A.D.2d 639, 564 N.Y.S.2d 771 (1st Dept. 1991); Orb......
-
King Cnty., Wash. v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG
...Investors, L.P. v. Toronto–Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87, 103 (2d Cir.2001)). Accord AFA Protective Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 912, 914, 456 N.Y.S.2d 757, 442 N.E.2d 1268 (1982) (“The issue of whether a ‘special relationship’ exists sufficient to make out a ca......
-
Fraud Standing: Can Fraud Claims Relating To Contracts Be Assigned?
...in the absence of fraud" ( id. at 421, citing Foster v. Di Paolo, 236 N.Y. 132 [1923], AFA Protective Sys. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 57 N.Y.2d 912 [1982], and Cayuga Harvester, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 95 A.D.2d 5 [4th Dept 1983] ). Moreover, this Court has "consistent[ly] refus[ed]......