H. Sand & Co. v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H. Sand & Co. v. Tishman Construction Corp.

191 A.D.2d 678, 595 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3085

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 678 (H. Sand & Co. v. Tishman 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

H. Sand & Co. v. Tishman Construction Corp., 191 A.D.2d 678, 595 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 25, 1991, which denied its motion for a change of place of trial from Queens County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subcontract into which the parties entered neither expressly provided for a choice of forum nor incorporated by reference the choice of forum clause contained in the prime contract (see, Gangel v DeGroot, 41 NY2d 840).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 25, 1991, which denied its motion for a change of place of trial from Queens County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subcontract into which the parties entered neither expressly provided for a choice of forum nor incorporated by reference the choice of forum clause contained in the prime contract (see, Gangel v DeGroot, 41 NY2d 840).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 678, 595 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-sand-co-v-tishman-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack