From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lozada v. Stricko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the third-party defendants' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as time-barred. To the extent that the third-party action is based on the failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract and seeks recovery for damages to property or pecuniary interests recoverable in a contract action, the third-party action was timely brought within the six-year Statute of Limitations applicable to contract actions (see, Video Corp. v. Flatto Assocs., 58 N.Y.2d 1026; Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Enco Assocs., 43 N.Y.2d 389).

We have considered the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lozada v. Stricko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1995
212 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Lozada v. Stricko

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LOZADA, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, LUCILLE A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 6, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 118