AHA General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AHA General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

256 A.D.2d 287, 682 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14145

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 15, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs newly advanced argument, that the notice provisions of the parties’ contract are inapplicable to its claims for breach of contract, is not preserved for appellate review (see, 815 Park Ave. Owners v Fireman’s Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 350, 355, lv denied 88 NY2d 808). Were we to reach this issue, it is clear that article 51 of the subject agreement does in fact require compliance with said notice provisions as a condition precedent to commencing an action for breach of contract and that the required notice was not given by plaintiff. We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 15, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs newly advanced argument, that the notice provisions of the parties’ contract are inapplicable to its claims for breach of contract, is not preserved for appellate review (see, 815 Park Ave. Owners v Fireman’s Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 350, 355, lv denied 88 NY2d 808). Were we to reach this issue, it is clear that article 51 of the subject agreement does in fact require compliance with said notice provisions as a condition precedent to commencing an action for breach of contract and that the required notice was not given by plaintiff. We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

AHA General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority, 256 A.D.2d 287, 682 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 287 (AHA General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related