Braun Equipment Co. v. Meli Borelli Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braun Equipment Co. v. Meli Borelli Associates

220 A.D.2d 312, 632 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11535

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 312 (Braun Equipment Co. v. Meli Borelli Associates) 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

Braun Equipment Co. v. Meli Borelli Associates, 220 A.D.2d 312, 632 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 3, 1995, which granted defendant and interpleading plaintiff Credit Suisse’s motion to stay arbitration demanded by interpleaded defendant Greene Mechanical Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The prime contract at bar (the "Construction Management Agreement”) expressly precludes third-party privity. The subcontract (the "Plumbing Contract”) has language incorporating the prime contract’s terms by reference. Accordingly, the subcontractor is not in privity with the tenant (who acts as an owner for present purposes), and the subcontractor’s recourse is against the prime contractor only (see, Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 280). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 3, 1995, which granted defendant and interpleading plaintiff Credit Suisse’s motion to stay arbitration demanded by interpleaded defendant Greene Mechanical Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The prime contract at bar (the "Construction Management Agreement”) expressly precludes third-party privity. The subcontract (the "Plumbing Contract”) has language incorporating the prime contract’s terms by reference. Accordingly, the subcontractor is not in privity with the tenant (who acts as an owner for present purposes), and the subcontractor’s recourse is against the prime contractor only (see, Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 280). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 312, 632 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braun-equipment-co-v-meli-borelli-associates-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack