Charles v. Onondaga Cmty. Coll., 396 N.E.2d 482 (NY 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles v. Onondaga Cmty. Coll., 396 N.E.2d 482 (NY 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Apple Records, Inc. v. Capitol Records, Inc. (nyappdiv, 1988-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Apple Records, Inc. v. Capitol Records, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
An oft used example is when a special relationship of "trust and confidence” exists between the contracting parties (such as is typically found between bailor and bailee, lawyer and client, principal and agent, public carrier and passenger or innkeeper and guest), so that born of this relation is a special duty, which, when betrayed, is made actionable in tort (supra, at 394; see also, Charles v Onondaga Community Coll., 69 AD2d 144, 146 , appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 650 ).
examined Cited "see, e.g." GLM CORP. v. Klein (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Charles v. Onondaga Community College, 69 A.D.2d 144 , 418 N.Y.S. 718 , 720, (4th Dep’t), appeal dismissed, 48 N.Y.2d 650 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 200 , 396 N.E.2d 482 (1979) (because the complaint alleged no unlawful purpose other than the breach itself, it stated only a contract action, and not one in tort); and Albemarle Theatre v. Bayberry Realty, 27 A.D.2d 172 , 277 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1st Dep’t 1967) (allegations that, breach of contract was calculated to drastically diminish plaintiff’s competitive position, to the substantial benefit of the defendants, stated an action in tort).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harvey Charles, Appellant,
v.
Onondaga Community College Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 18, 1979.
396 N.E.2d 482
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (Walker v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 36 NY2d 695; Lizza Inds. v Long Is. Light. Co., 36 NY2d 754).