Lloyd v. Town of Wheatfield, 67 N.Y.2d 809

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The damages sought by plaintiffs, for purely economic loss, are too speculative as a matter of law to sustain plaintiffs’ causes of action and the complaint, therefore, was properly dismissed (see, Tobin v Grossman, 24 NY2d 609, 615-616 [citing Battalla v State of New York, 10 NY2d 237, 242]; cf. Friedland v Myers, 139 NY 432, 435 [damages may be recovered provided that they are proximate in effect, neither speculative nor uncertain in character and were reasonably foreseen as a consequence of the wrong]). Accordingly, we need not decide whether the decision of defendant’s building inspector involved discretionary or ministerial conduct (see, Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd on opn below 15 NY2d 831).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case Details

Case Name: Lloyd v. Town of Wheatfield

Court Name: New York Court of Appeals

Date Published: Mar 20, 1986

Citations: 67 N.Y.2d 809; 492 N.E.2d 396; 501 N.Y.S.2d 323; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17526

Court Abbreviation: N.Y.