Opinion
December 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.).
In a commercial context, "a duty to speak with care exists when `the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, [is] such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information'" ( Kimmell v. Schaefer, 89 N.Y.2d 257, 263, quoting International Prods. Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 244 N.Y. 331, 338). A simple arm's length business relationship is not enough ( see, United Safety v. Consolidated Edison Co., 213 A.D.2d 283, 285). Here, plaintiff, an experienced plumbing contractor, prior to inspecting the job site, telephoned Engelhard's "800" number to inquire as to which of its products would be appropriate for joining extra strength brass pipes to heavy bronze fittings. Plaintiff did not identify the job site or working conditions, but, based on the information it did provide, was advised to use Engelhard's "Silavoy 4 Bag-1 with Ultraflux". Under these circumstances, "[p]laintiff's single unsolicited telephone inquiry to defendant is insufficient to create a special relationship between the parties" ( Stafkings Health Care Sys. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 221 A.D.2d 908, citing Security Pac. Bus. Credit v. Peat Marwick Main Co., 79 N.Y.2d 695, 705). We have considered plaintiffs remaining, arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.