Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc.

27 A.D.3d 278, 813 N.Y.S.2d 54

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 278 (Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, 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

Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 278, 813 N.Y.S.2d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a construction subcontractor, claims to be in privity with defendant tenant because plaintiff contracted with defendant’s construction manager, rather than with a general contractor. However, regardless of whether the intermediary was a construction manager or a general contractor, plaintiffs [279]*279claims are barred by various provisions of the construction management agreement incorporated by reference in plaintiffs subcontract and bid documents, which expressly preclude actions by third parties, including subcontractors, against defendant (see Braun Equip. Co. v Meli Borelli Assoc., 220 AD2d 312 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Gonzalez 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 (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a construction subcontractor, claims to be in privity with defendant tenant because plaintiff contracted with defendant’s construction manager, rather than with a general contractor. However, regardless of whether the intermediary was a construction manager or a general contractor, plaintiffs [279]*279claims are barred by various provisions of the construction management agreement incorporated by reference in plaintiffs subcontract and bid documents, which expressly preclude actions by third parties, including subcontractors, against defendant (see Braun Equip. Co. v Meli Borelli Assoc., 220 AD2d 312 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 278, 813 N.Y.S.2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaback-enterprises-inc-v-time-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack