Video Corp. of America v. Frederick Flatto Associates, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
74 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Klock v. Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C. (N.Y. 1992)
- Pereira v. Centel Corp. (In re Argo Communications Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- Bernstein v. Crazy Eddie, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1988)
- Cohen v. Goodfriend (District Court, E.D. New York 1987)
- Schweizer v. Mulvehill (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- Gebhardt v. Allspect, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- MATTHEWS AND FIELDS LUMBER CO. v. New England Ins. Co. (District Court, W.D. New York 2000)
- Levine v. Advest, Inc. (Conn. 1998)
- Durkin v. Shea (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
- Estate of Re v. Kornstein Veisz & Wexler (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
- Insurance Co. of North America v. ABB Power Generation, Inc. (District Court, N.D. New York 1996)
- T & N Plc v. Fred S. James & Co. Of New York, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994)
- Walsh v. Maryland Bank, N.A. (District Court, S.D. New York 1992)
- Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Dymm v. Cahill (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Schur v. Porter (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Rosen v. Spanierman (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Crossland Savings FSB v. Rockwood Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
- Lazzaro v. Manber (District Court, E.D. New York 1988)
- Walling v. Holman (2d Cir. 1988)
- Robinson v. Kamens (District Court, S.D. New York 1987)
- Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co. (Ala. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion 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 damages to property or pecuniary interests recoverable in a contract action is governed by the six-year contract Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 2). To the extent that Gilbert Props. v Millstein (33 NY2d 857) and Adler & Topal v Exclusive Envelope Corp. (84 AD2d 365) are to the contrary they should not be followed.
Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Question certified answered in the negative.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.