New York Surety Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Surety Co. v. City of New York

220 A.D.2d 334, 633 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10448

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 334 (New York Surety Co. 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

New York Surety Co. v. City of New York, 220 A.D.2d 334, 633 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered May 10, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and declaratory relief and granted defendants-respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[335]*335The court properly found that plaintiff surety was obligated to perform under the express and unambiguous terms of its payment and performance bonds (see, People v Backus, 117 NY 196, 201). Neither the validity of the underlying contract nor plaintiffs obligation to perform is affected by the sufficiency of the underlying contractor’s, bid to cover the payment of prevailing wages. The municipal defendants certainly had no responsibility to ensure that the contractor was in a position to profit from its bid (see, Hoxie’s Painting Co. v Cato-Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 NY2d 207, 213). Nor was the City obligated to notify plaintiff that the contractor’s bid might not have been calculated to cover payment of prevailing wages (see, Heating Maintenance Corp. v City of New York, 129 NYS2d 466, 470).

The court also properly denied, as premature, injunctive relief to prevent the City from refusing to accept future surety bonds (see, Prashker v United States Guar. Co., 1 NY2d 584, 592). We also note plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities in its favor to justify injunctive relief (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered May 10, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive and declaratory relief and granted defendants-respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[335]*335The court properly found that plaintiff surety was obligated to perform under the express and unambiguous terms of its payment and performance bonds (see, People v Backus, 117 NY 196, 201). Neither the validity of the underlying contract nor plaintiffs obligation to perform is affected by the sufficiency of the underlying contractor’s, bid to cover the payment of prevailing wages. The municipal defendants certainly had no responsibility to ensure that the contractor was in a position to profit from its bid (see, Hoxie’s Painting Co. v Cato-Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 NY2d 207, 213). Nor was the City obligated to notify plaintiff that the contractor’s bid might not have been calculated to cover payment of prevailing wages (see, Heating Maintenance Corp. v City of New York, 129 NYS2d 466, 470).

The court also properly denied, as premature, injunctive relief to prevent the City from refusing to accept future surety bonds (see, Prashker v United States Guar. Co., 1 NY2d 584, 592). We also note plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities in its favor to justify injunctive relief (see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 334, 633 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-surety-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack