2008 NY Slip Op 2199 2008 NY Slip Op 2199, *; 852 N.Y.S.2d 768;
2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064, **

   [*1]  Midtown Distributors Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v Mutual Central Alarm Services, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
 
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip Op 2199; 852 N.Y.S.2d 768; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064

March 13, 2008, Decided
March 13, 2008, Entered


COUNSEL:  [**1] Mitchell L. Pashkin ,

Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, New York (Eric L. Shoikhetman of counsel), for respondent.

JUDGES: Lippman , P.J., Andrias , Williams ,

  OPINION

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered on or about December 18, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's claims that defendant burglar alarm company installed a different alarm system and a different number of sensors than provided in the parties' contract, and failed to determine that the alarm had been tripped by burglars rather than birds, are barred by the exculpatory clause in the contract (see Sue & Sam Mfg. Co. v United Protective Alarm Sys., 119 AD2d 664, 501 N.Y.S.2d 102 [1986]; Nuri Farhardi, Inc. v Albany Ins. Co., 137 AD2d 429, 524 N.Y.S.2d 445[1988]). Plaintiff does not allege such gross negligence as would avoid the exculpatory clause (cf. Hartford Ins. Co. v Holmes Protection Group, 250 AD2d 526, 527-528, ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED:  [**2] MARCH 13, 2008