49
368 N.E.2d 1247, 1250 (N.Y. 1977). Where the transaction is "predominately service-
oriented," neither the Uniform Commercial Code nor the common law will be read to
establish an obligation to "guard against economic loss stemming from the nonnegligent
performance" of obligations under the contract. Id. at 1251. The Amended Complaint
alleges that all of the Design and Construction Defendants were somehow involved in the
manufacture of products installed in 7WTC, and alleges, among other things, that these
defendants were negligent in "manufacturing ... structural systems at 7 World Trade
Center." (Am. Compl. 7272 ¶ 173(b).) These allegations, plaintiffs argue, must be
accepted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
Plaintiffs' argument does not reflect the law. Lazy pleading will not
create a cause of action that common sense suggests does not exist. Providers of services
are not manufacturers of products and neither alchemy nor conclusory allegations can
change that. My Order of January 7, 2005, pointed out to plaintiffs the strong New York
policy protecting architects, engineers and performers of construction services. The
specific notice that is a pre-requisite to suing providers of such services cannot be
evaded.
Twelve defendants are not alleged to have engaged in any manufacture,
beyond the broad allegations against groups of defendants in Counts Six, Eight, and Ten
of the Amended Complaint. The allegations against Syska, Irwin Cantor, Cosentini,
Cantor Seinuk, Flack & Kurtz, are that they served as engineers on the various projects.
(Am. Compl. 7272 ¶¶ 21, 24, 32, 34, 63.) Defendants Emery Roth, Swanke, Ambassor,
Skidmore, are alleged to have served as architects on the various projects. (Am. Compl.
7272 ¶¶ 18, 28, 30, 60.) Tishman, AMEC, Centrigufal, were alleged to have been
