Case ID: ad2d_212/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Lozada, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Lucille A. Golenko, et al., Plaintiffs, v Olga Stricko et al., Defendants, and Josef Sokolowski et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Erm-Northeast et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.
    [623 NYS2d 118]
   —In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated August 26, 1994, which denied their motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as time-barred.

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 NY2d 1026; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Eneo Assocs., 43 NY2d 389).

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