Gonzalez v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.

119 A.D.3d 432, 988 N.Y.S.2d 490

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2014

Docket20712/12 12918A 20508/12 12918

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 432 (Gonzalez v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.) 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

Gonzalez v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 119 A.D.3d 432, 988 N.Y.S.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 5, 2013, and on or about April 5, 2013, which granted defendant Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC’s (Galaxy) motions to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against it, and denied plaintiffs’ respective cross motions for leave to amend the complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendant Galaxy’s motions to dismiss the initial complaints, as those pleadings failed to allege facts sufficient to show that plaintiffs were the intended third-party beneficiaries of any wage and benefits provisions set forth in the general contract (see Oursler v Women’s Interart Ctr., 170 AD2d 407 [1st Dept 1991]; Alicea v City of New York, 145 AD2d 315, 317-318 [1st Dept 1988]). Because the proposed amended complaints suffer from the same deficiencies, the court also properly denied leave to amend (see Davis & Davis v Morson, 286 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 2001]).

We do not consider plaintiff’s arguments under the Davis-Bacon Act since they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 5, 2013, and on or about April 5, 2013, which granted defendant Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC’s (Galaxy) motions to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against it, and denied plaintiffs’ respective cross motions for leave to amend the complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendant Galaxy’s motions to dismiss the initial complaints, as those pleadings failed to allege facts sufficient to show that plaintiffs were the intended third-party beneficiaries of any wage and benefits provisions set forth in the general contract (see Oursler v Women’s Interart Ctr., 170 AD2d 407 [1st Dept 1991]; Alicea v City of New York, 145 AD2d 315, 317-318 [1st Dept 1988]). Because the proposed amended complaints suffer from the same deficiencies, the court also properly denied leave to amend (see Davis & Davis v Morson, 286 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 2001]).

We do not consider plaintiff’s arguments under the Davis-Bacon Act since they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 432, 988 N.Y.S.2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-fidelity-deposit-co-of-md-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack