Opinion
August 30, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 20, 1990, as denied that branch of the motion of the respondents which was to dismiss certain cross claims against them is dismissed, on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved thereby (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
We conclude that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the respondents (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The plaintiff cannot "point with specificity to some contractual agreement * * * that has been breached, in order to avail himself of the [six-year Statute of Limitations]" (Hirsch v Weisman, 189 A.D.2d 643, 644; cf., Santulli v Englert, Reilly McHugh, 78 N.Y.2d 700).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.