Santiago v. 1370 Broadway Associates, LP
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Kwan v. Schlein (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
- United Teamster Fund v. MagnaCare Administrative Services, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Cunningham v. Insurance Co. of North America (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
- Von Hoffmann v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Lam Hong Chan v. New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Bond v. Progressive Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. Gross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Karas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Venditti v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Knowles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Manes Organization, Inc. v. Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Valentin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. Robertson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Federal Insurance v. Spectrum Insurance Brokerage Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Rusiniak's Service, Inc. v. McMahon Agency, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
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 modified, without costs, in accordance with this memorandum, and as so modified, affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
We agree with the Appellate Division that the alleged misfeasance of insurance agents and brokers toward their clients is not “malpractice” within CPLR 214 (6) (see, Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20 [decided today]). That a breach of contract claim against insurance agents and brokers would be governed by the six-year statute (CPLR 213 [2]) does not, however, resolve this appeal because Herbert, in its third-party complaint, has not asserted a breach of contract claim against Essential. Herbert’s third-party complaint charges “negligence and/or errors or omissions,” and “negligence, material misrepresentation or fraud.” Fraud (CPLR 213 [8]) and misrepresentation (CPLR 213 [1]) have six-year limitations periods; negligence has a three-year limitations period *767 (CPLR 214 [4]). Applying these sections rather than CPLR 214 (6), there should be a factual determination as to whether the action was timely commenced. Issues regarding contribution and indemnification, argued in Supreme Court, are not raised before us.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.