CLEMENS REALTY LLC v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2008)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated January 5, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) and denied its cross motion for leave to amend its complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 Education Law § 3813(2-b) provides that no action or special proceeding shall be commenced against a school district more than one year after the cause of action arose.   A breach of contract cause of action arises when the “party seeking payment should have viewed his claim as having been constructively rejected” (Henry Boeckmann, Jr. & Assoc. v. Board of Educ., Hempstead Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 207 A.D.2d 773, 775, 616 N.Y.S.2d 395;  see James McCullagh Co., Inc. v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 39 A.D.3d 480, 481, 833 N.Y.S.2d 214;  Matter of Mahopac Cent. School Dist. v. Piazza Bros., Inc., 29 A.D.3d 699, 700, 815 N.Y.S.2d 168;  Capstone Enterps. of Port Chester, Inc. v. Valhalla Union Free School Dist., 27 A.D.3d 411, 411-412, 809 N.Y.S.2d 917;  Dodge, Chamberlin, Luzine, Weber Architects v. Dutchess County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 258 A.D.2d 434, 684 N.Y.S.2d 583).   Here, the defendant established that the plaintiff's claim was constructively rejected more than one year before commencement of the action (see James McCullagh Co., Inc. v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 39 A.D.3d at 481, 833 N.Y.S.2d 214;  D.J.H. Mech. Assoc., Ltd. v. Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 21 A.D.3d 521, 522, 799 N.Y.S.2d 907;  Dodge, Chamberlin, Luzine, Weber Architects v. Dutchess County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 258 A.D.2d 434, 684 N.Y.S.2d 583).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this cause of action as time-barred.

 In addition, the Supreme Court also correctly dismissed the second cause of action seeking to recover damages for breach of duty of care.   “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated [citations omitted].   This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190;  see Sargent v. New York Daily News, L.P., 42 A.D.3d 491, 493, 840 N.Y.S.2d 101;  Brown v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 28 A.D.3d 412, 413, 811 N.Y.S.2d 570;  Old Republic Nat. Tit. Ins. Co. v. Cardinal Abstract Corp., 14 A.D.3d 678, 680, 790 N.Y.S.2d 143;  Briar Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 628, 629, 550 N.Y.S.2d 717;  see also Wecker v. Quaderer, 237 A.D.2d 512, 513, 655 N.Y.S.2d 93).   In fact, “[s]imply alleging a duty of due care does not transform a breach of contract action into a tort claim” (Briar Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 156 A.D.2d at 629, 550 N.Y.S.2d 717;  see Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v. Cardinal Abstract Corp., 14 A.D.3d at 680, 790 N.Y.S.2d 143).   The plaintiff failed to allege or demonstrate that the defendant owed it a legal duty independent of the contractual duty, and that the defendant breached that independent duty.   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this cause of action as well.

In light of this determination, the plaintiff's remaining contention has been rendered academic.