Lloyd v. Town of Wheatfield
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Valvetech, Inc. v. OHB System AG (District Court, W.D. New York 2020)
- SHMUELI, SHMUEL v. WHITESTAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Shmueli v. Whitestar Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Shmueli v. Whitestar Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- CRVELIN, MELINA v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Crvelin v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Crvelin v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- TSL (USA) Inc. v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- TSL (USA) Inc. v. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rakylar v. Washington Mutual Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Neos v. Lacey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Ferrarese v. USAA Casualty Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Cambridge Associates v. Town of North Salem (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Ecker v. Zwaik & Bernstein, P. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Special Products Manufacturing, Inc. v. Douglass (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Haven Associates v. Donro Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Pietra v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The damages sought by plaintiffs, for purely economic loss, are too speculative as a matter of law to sustain plaintiffs’ causes of action and the complaint, therefore, was properly dismissed (see, Tobin v Grossman, 24 NY2d 609, 615-616 [citing Battalla v State of New York, 10 NY2d 237, 242]; cf. Friedland v Myers, 139 NY 432, 435 [damages may be recovered provided that they are proximate in effect, neither speculative nor uncertain in character and were reasonably foreseen as a consequence of the wrong]). Accordingly, we need not decide *811 whether the decision of defendant’s building inspector involved discretionary or ministerial conduct (see, Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd on opn below 15 NY2d 831).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.