Capstone Business Funding, LLC v. Optimum Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capstone Business Funding, LLC v. Optimum Construction, Inc.

134 A.D.3d 471, 19 N.Y.S.3d 888

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

Docket16344 652991/13 95057/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 471 (Capstone Business Funding, LLC v. Optimum Construction, Inc.) 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

Capstone Business Funding, LLC v. Optimum Construction, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 471, 19 N.Y.S.3d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 9, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found defendant surety bound by the estoppel certificate signed by its principal, as plaintiff detrimentally relied on the certificate in advancing funds to the subcontractor for whose benefit the surety’s payment bond was required (see JRK Franklin, LLC v 164 E. 87th St. LLC, *472 27 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]), there was no defense, such as economic duress, that would vitiate the estoppel certificate (see Philips S. Beach, LLC v ZC Specialty Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 713 [2009]), and the bond contained a provision waiving the surety’s right to a discharge from its obligations based upon its principal’s conduct (see Aniero Concrete Co., Inc. v New York City Constr. Auth., 1998 WL 148324, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3938 [SD NY 1998, 94 Civ 9111 (CSH), 95 Civ 3506 (CSH)], affd sub nom. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Aniero Concrete Co., Inc., 404 F3d 566 [2d Cir 2005]).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 9, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found defendant surety bound by the estoppel certificate signed by its principal, as plaintiff detrimentally relied on the certificate in advancing funds to the subcontractor for whose benefit the surety’s payment bond was required (see JRK Franklin, LLC v 164 E. 87th St. LLC, *472 27 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]), there was no defense, such as economic duress, that would vitiate the estoppel certificate (see Philips S. Beach, LLC v ZC Specialty Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 713 [2009]), and the bond contained a provision waiving the surety’s right to a discharge from its obligations based upon its principal’s conduct (see Aniero Concrete Co., Inc. v New York City Constr. Auth., 1998 WL 148324, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 3938 [SD NY 1998, 94 Civ 9111 (CSH), 95 Civ 3506 (CSH)], affd sub nom. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Aniero Concrete Co., Inc., 404 F3d 566 [2d Cir 2005]).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 471, 19 N.Y.S.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capstone-business-funding-llc-v-optimum-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack