Aabco Sheet Metal Co. v. Seven West 34th Street Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aabco Sheet Metal Co. v. Seven West 34th Street Development Corp.

220 A.D.2d 229, 632 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about May 1, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint so as to add a cause of action on the payment bond issued by defendant insurer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants should be estopped from asserting the 90-day notice provision in the payment bond is without merit, given no actual misrepresentation that such a bond did not exist (see, Gleason v Spota, 194 AD2d 764, 765) that lulled plaintiff into inactivity (see, Triple Cities Constr. Co. v Maryland Cas. Co., 4 NY2d 443, 448). Here, plaintiff shows at most that its inquiries concerning the bond’s existence were met only with silence, which, far from lulling plaintiff, should have alerted it to the need for more assertive measures. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about May 1, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint so as to add a cause of action on the payment bond issued by defendant insurer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants should be estopped from asserting the 90-day notice provision in the payment bond is without merit, given no actual misrepresentation that such a bond did not exist (see, Gleason v Spota, 194 AD2d 764, 765) that lulled plaintiff into inactivity (see, Triple Cities Constr. Co. v Maryland Cas. Co., 4 NY2d 443, 448). Here, plaintiff shows at most that its inquiries concerning the bond’s existence were met only with silence, which, far from lulling plaintiff, should have alerted it to the need for more assertive measures. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Aabco Sheet Metal Co. v. Seven West 34th Street Development Corp., 220 A.D.2d 229, 632 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

220 A.D.2d 229 (Aabco Sheet Metal Co. v. Seven West 34th Street Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related