HRH Construction, LLC v. Elite Construction of N.Y., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HRH Construction, LLC v. Elite Construction of N.Y., Inc.

36 A.D.3d 560, 827 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 560 (HRH Construction, LLC v. Elite Construction of N.Y., 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

HRH Construction, LLC v. Elite Construction of N.Y., Inc., 36 A.D.3d 560, 827 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered January 10, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendant Centennial Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their compliance with the conditions precedent for payment under the performance and payment bonds, and the court properly denied defendant Centennial Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action since Centennial’s evidence failed to negate the facts pleaded by plaintiffs beyond substantial question (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered January 10, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendant Centennial Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their compliance with the conditions precedent for payment under the performance and payment bonds, and the court properly denied defendant Centennial Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action since Centennial’s evidence failed to negate the facts pleaded by plaintiffs beyond substantial question (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 560, 827 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hrh-construction-llc-v-elite-construction-of-ny-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack