Hunter Highlands I Condominium v. Yolo Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunter Highlands I Condominium v. Yolo Equities Corp.

8 A.D.3d 437, 778 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 437 (Hunter Highlands I Condominium v. Yolo Equities 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

Hunter Highlands I Condominium v. Yolo Equities Corp., 8 A.D.3d 437, 778 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered March 4, 2003, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, it was only an incidental beneficiary under the agreement at issue (see State of Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Shearman & Sterling, 95 NY2d 427 [2000]; Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 NY2d 38 [1985]). Therefore, it could not maintain a third-party beneficiary claim against the defendant under the agreement (see State of Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Shearman & Sterling, supra; Fenton v Fenton, 253 AD2d 844 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered March 4, 2003, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, it was only an incidental beneficiary under the agreement at issue (see State of Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Shearman & Sterling, 95 NY2d 427 [2000]; Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 NY2d 38 [1985]). Therefore, it could not maintain a third-party beneficiary claim against the defendant under the agreement (see State of Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys. v Shearman & Sterling, supra; Fenton v Fenton, 253 AD2d 844 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 437, 778 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-highlands-i-condominium-v-yolo-equities-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack