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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 287 (AHA General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 287, 682 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aha-general-construction-inc-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack