Florence v. Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 412 N.E.2d 1317 (NY 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Florence v. Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 412 N.E.2d 1317 (NY 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
70 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: irth Solutions, LLC v. Atlantic InfraTrac, LLC (nywd, 2019-11-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) irth Solutions, LLC v. Atlantic InfraTrac, LLC
W.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793, 794-95 (1980) (upholding term in burglar alarm contract providing that the “sole duty” of the alarm company was to notify the police and subscriber if illegal entry was indicated, that the alarm company “assume[d] no responsibility whatsoever for the condition of” the alarm, and that the company’s liability for any loss sustained through burglary or otherwise was limited to $50.00); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Keste, LLC, No. 14-CV-6272 CJS, 2014 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) irth Solutions, LLC v. S&S Utilities Engineering, LLC
W.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793, 794-95 (1980) (upholding term in burglar alarm contract providing that the “sole duty” of the alarm company was to notify the police and subscriber if illegal entry was indicated, that the alarm company “assume[d] no responsibility whatsoever for the condition of” the alarm, and that the company’s liability for any loss sustained through burglary or otherwise was limited to $50.00); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Keste, LLC, No. 14-CV-6272 CJS, 2014 U.S. Dist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Musket Corporation v. Suncor Engy (U.S.A.) Mkt, In
5th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793, 795 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ERE LLP v. Spanierman Gallery, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Abacus Fed. Sav. v. Adt SEC.
NY · 2012 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Abacus Federal Savings Bank v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
NY · 2012 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Automobile Insurance v. Rest Assured Alarm System, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793 , 433 N.Y.S.2d 91 , 412 N.E.2d 1317, 1318 (1980) (noting that installer of police alarm system could contractually limit its liability so long as limitation was not obscured from plaintiffs’ notice).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Citibank, N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980]; Pimpinello v Swift & Co., 253 NY 159, 162-163 [1930]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.
NY · 1992 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [burglar alarm limitation of liability valid, though no option provided, because contract not within the statute]). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Calvin Klein Ltd. v. Trylon Trucking Corp.
2d Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793, 795 , 412 N.E.2d 1317, 1318 , 433 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nuri Farhardi, Inc. v. Albany Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · confidence medium
Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793, 795 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Winer
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1984 · confidence medium
DaSilva v. Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 550 , 428 N.E.2d 382, 386 , 444 N.Y.S.2d 50, 54 (1981); Florence v. Merchants Central Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793, 795 , 412 N.E.2d 1317, 1318 , 433 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92 (1980).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Anunziatta v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. (3×)
N.D.N.Y. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Florence v. Merchants Central Alarm Co., Inc., 51 N.Y.2d 793 , 433 N.Y.S.2d 91 , 412 N.E.2d 1317 (1980) (installation and maintenance of fire alarm not subject to statute); Colnaghi, U.S.A., Ltd. v. Jewelers Protection Services, Ltd., 183 A.D.2d 469 , 583 N.Y.S.2d 427 (1st Dep’t 1992) (installation and maintenance of burglar alarm not covered); St.
Michael Florence, Doing Business as National Record Plan
v.
Merchants Central Alarm Co., Inc.
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 7, 1980.
412 N.E.2d 1317
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Milton B. Pfeffer for appellants., Robert L. Horkitz for respondent.
Cooke, Fuchsberg, Gabrielli, Jasen, Jones, Meyer, Wachtler.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The contract provided that "The sole duty of the Contractor is to notify the Police Department and the Subscriber by calling on the telephone if a signal is received in the Central Station which might indicate illegal entry” (par 4) and that "the Contractor assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the[*795] condition of said Police Alarm transmitter or for any loss sustained by the Subscriber through burglary or through any other cause, during the period within which the contract is in force. It is agreed that the Contractor is not an insurer and that the payments hereinbefore named are based solely on the value of the service described and, in case of failure to perform such service and a resulting loss, the Contractor’s liability hereunder shall be limited to and fixed at the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, and this liability shall be exclusive” (par 7).

Despite its erroneous reference to "liquidated damages” (see Rinaldi & Sons v Wells Fargo Alarm Serv., 39 NY2d 191, 197), defendant’s contract, unlike the sprinkler contract involved in Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v American Dist. Tel. Co. (18 NY2d 57), is not one "affecting real property” or for "services rendered in connection with the construction, maintenance and repair of real property” within the meaning of section 5-323 of the General Obligations Law. Defendant was, therefore, free to limit its liability (ibid.; Ciofalo v Vic Tanney Gyms, 10 NY2d 294) without offering a greater liability for a greater charge, subject only to the requirement that the limitation be not so obscured (as, for example, a baggage check not in usual contract form, see Klar v H. & M. Parcel Room, 270 App Div 538, affd 296 NY 1044; Howard v Handler Bros. & Winell, 279 App Div 72, affd 303 NY 990) as to make it probable that it would escape plaintiffs’ attention. Here the type in which the contract was printed is uniform in size and contained entirely on the face of one sheet of paper, and there are no paragraph headings or subtitles that could mislead a reader. If plaintiffs read the contract at all they were aware of the limitation, and the law’s teaching since Pimpinello v Swift & Co. (253 NY 159) has been that if they could read it, the fact that they did not is immaterial, absent evidence of fraud.

In this commercial setting, where the language of the limitation is clear, there is no necessity to "resort to a magnifying glass and lexicon” (see Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 107), no governing statute and no special relationship between the parties that would warrant relieving plaintiffs of their contract. The Appellate Division’s direction of summary judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $50 was, therefore, correct.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.