On January 21, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in 450 Gin Lane SH, LLC v. Gentry Constr. Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 00228, holding that a claim for contribution cannot be based only on the breach of a contractual duty, explaining:
To sustain a third-party cause of action for contribution, a third-party plaintiff is required to show that the third-party defendant owed it a duty of reasonable care independent of its contractual obligations, if any, or that a duty was owed to the plaintiffs as injured parties and that a breach of that duty contributed to the alleged injuries. The critical requirement is that the breach of duty by the contributing party must have had a part in causing or augmenting the injury for which contribution is sought. Purely economic loss resulting from a breach of contract does not constitute injury to property within the meaning of New York’s contribution statute CPLR 1401. Thus, contribution is not available where the damages sought are exclusively for breach of contract.
Here, the plaintiff alleged purely economic loss resulting from a breach of contract, which does not constitute injury to property within the meaning of CPLR 1401. Moreover, the cause of action that was denominated as one to recover damages for negligence was premised upon the plaintiff’s allegations that Gentry failed to perform its contractual obligations, which sound in breach of contract. Where a plaintiff’s direct claims against a [ ]defendant seek only a contractual benefit of the bargain recovery, their tort language notwithstanding, contribution is unavailable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the separate motions of D & C and Shope which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the third-party cause of action for contribution insofar as asserted against each of them.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).