Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc. v. Impact Environmental Engineering, PLLC

80 A.D.3d 505, 915 N.Y.S.2d 541
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 505 (Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc. v. Impact Environmental Engineering, PLLC) 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
Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc. v. Impact Environmental Engineering, PLLC, 80 A.D.3d 505, 915 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 6, 2009, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dismissal of the action was appropriate since plaintiffs failed to comply with the express, bargained-for condition precedent to their right to bring an action against defendants (see Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 208 AD2d 63 [1995], affd 87 NY2d 927 [1996]; see also Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690-692 [1995]). The agreements between the parties made the submission by plaintiffs of an expert certification to defendants a condition precedent to plaintiffs’ right to bring any legal action against defendants. Plaintiffs failed to submit such certification prior to commencing this action and their efforts to utilize the relation-back doctrine to cure the defective initial complaint are unavailing. Relation back applies to the amendment of claims and par[506]*506ties and is dependent upon the existence of a valid preexisting action (see Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 248-249 [1980]). Here, however, the original complaint was brought by plaintiffs in violation of the condition precedent, and plaintiffs cannot rely upon CPLR 203 (f) to cure such failure to comply (see Goldberg v Camp Mikan-Recro, 42 NY2d 1029 [1977]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Ellington Owners Corp. v. 200 Bradhurst Devs. LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51111(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Sutton Apts. Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Dev. LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Thomas v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 6898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Varga v. McGraw Hill Financial, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 1131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. Alternative Loan Trust v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.
139 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc.
52 Misc. 3d 343 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc.
112 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc. v. Impact Environmental Engineering, PLLC
104 A.D.3d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.3d 505, 915 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-wine-spirits-of-america-inc-v-impact-environmental-nyappdiv-2011.