M.T.F. Industries, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M.T.F. Industries, Inc. v. City of New York

240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 291

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 201 (M.T.F. Industries, Inc. v. City of New York) 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

M.T.F. Industries, Inc. v. City of New York, 240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 28, 1996, which, in an action for breach of contract by a contractor against the City, and an action by the City for specific performance against the contractor’s sureties, dismissed the contractor’s complaint in the first action [202]*202and. the sureties’ counterclaims in the second action alleging the City’s breach of the contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject contract provides that the City can declare the-contractor in default after affording an opportunity to be heard on two days notice. Notice having been given, and the default hearing having resulted in a determination that the contractor had defaulted, the contractor’s only course was to challenge that determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not in an action for breach of contract. Accordingly, the contractor’s claims and the sureties’ counterclaims against the City, which arise out of the same transaction as that involved in the default hearing, are barred by res judicata and were properly dismissed (see, Brooklyn Welding Corp. v City of New York, 198 AD2d 189, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 795). We have considered appellants’ other arguments, including that the City could not initiate its default hearing after the contractor had already commenced its action for breach of contract, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 28, 1996, which, in an action for breach of contract by a contractor against the City, and an action by the City for specific performance against the contractor’s sureties, dismissed the contractor’s complaint in the first action [202]*202and. the sureties’ counterclaims in the second action alleging the City’s breach of the contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject contract provides that the City can declare the-contractor in default after affording an opportunity to be heard on two days notice. Notice having been given, and the default hearing having resulted in a determination that the contractor had defaulted, the contractor’s only course was to challenge that determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not in an action for breach of contract. Accordingly, the contractor’s claims and the sureties’ counterclaims against the City, which arise out of the same transaction as that involved in the default hearing, are barred by res judicata and were properly dismissed (see, Brooklyn Welding Corp. v City of New York, 198 AD2d 189, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 795). We have considered appellants’ other arguments, including that the City could not initiate its default hearing after the contractor had already commenced its action for breach of contract, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 201, 658 N.Y.S.2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtf-industries-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack