96 N.Y.2d at 766 cited at this page5 citing cases
- CIFG Assurance North Am., Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 146 A.D.3d 60 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedThe statute of limitations for misrepresentation is six years, rendering the claim timely (see CPLR 213 [1]; Santiago v 1370 Broadway Assoc., 96 NY2d 765, 766 [2001]; Bokara Rug Co., Inc. v Kapoor, 93 AD3d 583, 584 [1st Dept 2012]; Catanza…
- Bond v. Progressive Ins., 82 A.D.3d 1318 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).publishedIn our view, plaintiffs cause of action charging HEG with negligence, breach of duty and “errors and omissions” sounds in tort (see Santiago v 1370 Broadway Assoc., 96 NY2d 765, 766 [2001]), is governed by the three-year negligence statute…
- Venditti v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 6 A.D.3d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedPlaintiffs’ allegation that Schwartz breached his common-law duty to obtain the requested coverage (see Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 270 [1997]) sets forth a claim in tort which requires the application of the three-year limitations period…
- Manes Org., Inc. v. Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).publishedPlaintiffs malpractice claims were not viable since, inter alia, defendant insurance brokers and adjuster are not deemed to be professionals (see Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20, 30 [2001]; Santiago v 1370 Broadway Assoc.…
- Fed. Ins. v. Spectrum Ins. Brokerage Servs., Inc., 304 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).publishedContrary to the court’s finding, the malpractice and/or negligence causes were not time-barred under the three-year statutory period prescribed in CPLR 214 (6) since that statutory period only applies to allegations of “malpractice” and “t…
Other citing cases
- Lipman, No. 1:24-cv-08656 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025).
- Lam Hong Chan v. New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published
- United Teamster Fund v. MagnaCare Admin. Servs., LLC, 39 F. Supp. 3d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).published
- Rusiniak's Serv., Inc. v. McMahon Agency, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2002).published
v.
1370 Broadway Associates, L.P., Et Al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.); Herbert Construction Co., Inc., Now Known As. WFC Construction Company, Inc., Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Essential Coverage Corp., Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, Et Al., Second Third-Party Defendants
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with this memorandum, and as so modified, affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
We agree with the Appellate Division that the alleged misfeasance of insurance agents and brokers toward their clients is not “malpractice” within CPLR 214 (6) (see, Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20 [decided today]). That a breach of contract claim against insurance agents and brokers would be governed by the six-year statute (CPLR 213 [2]) does not, however, resolve this appeal because Herbert, in its third-party complaint, has not asserted a breach of contract claim against Essential. Herbert’s third-party complaint charges “negligence and/or errors or omissions,” and “negligence, material misrepresentation or fraud.” Fraud (CPLR 213 [8]) and misrepresentation (CPLR 213 [1]) have six-year limitations periods; negligence has a three-year limitations period[*767] (CPLR 214 [4]). Applying these sections rather than CPLR 214 (6), there should be a factual determination as to whether the action was timely commenced. Issues regarding contribution and indemnification, argued in Supreme Court, are not raised before us.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.