In Board of Educ. of Hudson City School District v. Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 N.Y.2d 21 [1987] the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a third-party contribution action brought by an architect arising from the installation of defective roofing, because the underlying action against the architect was for breach of contract, not tort. The Court held that "to permit apportionment of liability, pursuant to CPLR 1401, arising solely from breach of contract would not only be at odds with the statute's legislative history, but also do violence to settled principles of contract law which limit a contracting party's liability to those damages that are reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract is formed" (id. at 28). The Court further held that a right of contribution cannot be created through a party's bald assertions of a breach of a "duty of due care" in performing the terms of the contract, because "merely charging a breach of a 'duty of due care,' employing language familiar to tort law, does not, without more, transform a simple breach of contract into a tort claim" (id. at 29.)