American Standard, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Standard, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority

133 A.D.2d 595, 519 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51636

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 595 (American Standard, Inc. v. New York City Transit 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

American Standard, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, 133 A.D.2d 595, 519 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated [596]*596February 28, 1986, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action of the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A contractor may enter into an agreement with a subcontractor to liquidate any liability that it might have to the latter for delay damages caused by the owner in the amount which could be recovered in a lawsuit brought in the contractor’s name against the owner (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., 117 AD2d 227, 231; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., 61 AD2d 953, 954). In a case such as this, where an admission of liability by the plaintiff contractor is clearly implicit in the liquidation agreement, suit against the owner may be prosecuted in the contractor’s name, even though no damages have been suffered directly by the contractor (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra; Simmons Co. v United States, 304 F2d 886, 890; but cf., Mars Assocs. v New York City Educ. Constr. Fund, 126 AD2d 178, 192). Moreover, such a suit can be brought in the plaintiff contractor’s name even though the subcontractor is made primarily responsible for prosecuting this action and bearing the costs of the litigation (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action in the complaint was properly denied.

The defendants concede that the issue of whether they were shielded from liability for delay damages by the exculpatory provisions in the contract with the plaintiff was not raised before the court of first instance and is thus not properly before this court on appeal (see, Lavine v Lavine, 127 AD2d 566; Risucci v Homayoon, 122 AD2d 260). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated [596]*596February 28, 1986, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action of the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A contractor may enter into an agreement with a subcontractor to liquidate any liability that it might have to the latter for delay damages caused by the owner in the amount which could be recovered in a lawsuit brought in the contractor’s name against the owner (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., 117 AD2d 227, 231; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., 61 AD2d 953, 954). In a case such as this, where an admission of liability by the plaintiff contractor is clearly implicit in the liquidation agreement, suit against the owner may be prosecuted in the contractor’s name, even though no damages have been suffered directly by the contractor (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra; Simmons Co. v United States, 304 F2d 886, 890; but cf., Mars Assocs. v New York City Educ. Constr. Fund, 126 AD2d 178, 192). Moreover, such a suit can be brought in the plaintiff contractor’s name even though the subcontractor is made primarily responsible for prosecuting this action and bearing the costs of the litigation (see, Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp., supra; Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N. Y. Auth., supra). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action in the complaint was properly denied.

The defendants concede that the issue of whether they were shielded from liability for delay damages by the exculpatory provisions in the contract with the plaintiff was not raised before the court of first instance and is thus not properly before this court on appeal (see, Lavine v Lavine, 127 AD2d 566; Risucci v Homayoon, 122 AD2d 260). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 595, 519 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-standard-inc-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack