Opinion
Argued February 7, 1986
Decided March 20, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Henry G. Gossel, J.
Roger J. Niemel for appellants.
F. Warren Kahn for respondent.
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 N.Y.2d 609, 615-616 [citing Battalla v State of New York, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 242]; cf. Friedland v Myers, 139 N.Y. 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 whether the decision of defendant's building inspector involved discretionary or ministerial conduct (see, Rottkamp v Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, affd on opn below 15 N.Y.2d 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.