Burmont Contractors, Inc. v. Hillcroft Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burmont Contractors, Inc. v. Hillcroft Construction Corp.

78 A.D.2d 644, 434 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 644 (Burmont Contractors, Inc. v. Hillcroft Construction Corp.) 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

Burmont Contractors, Inc. v. Hillcroft Construction Corp., 78 A.D.2d 644, 434 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, on a construction contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 11, 1979, which granted defendant Bellino Construction Co., Inc.’s motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action in the supplemental complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. As a [645]*645matter of law, plaintiff could not be considered a third-party beneficiary of the indemnification agreement entered into between defendant-respondent, Bellino Construction Co., Inc., and defendant Hillcroft Construction Corp. (cf. Spartan Concrete Corp. v Harbour Val. Homes, 71 AD2d 950, 951; Goodman-Marks Assoc. v Westbury Post Assoc., 70 AD2d 145). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, on a construction contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 11, 1979, which granted defendant Bellino Construction Co., Inc.’s motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action in the supplemental complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. As a [645]*645matter of law, plaintiff could not be considered a third-party beneficiary of the indemnification agreement entered into between defendant-respondent, Bellino Construction Co., Inc., and defendant Hillcroft Construction Corp. (cf. Spartan Concrete Corp. v Harbour Val. Homes, 71 AD2d 950, 951; Goodman-Marks Assoc. v Westbury Post Assoc., 70 AD2d 145). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 644, 434 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burmont-contractors-inc-v-hillcroft-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack