Varlotta Construction Corp. v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varlotta Construction Corp. v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

234 A.D.2d 183, 651 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12561

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 183 (Varlotta Construction Corp. v. Sette-Juliano Construction 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

Varlotta Construction Corp. v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp., 234 A.D.2d 183, 651 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1995, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company’s cross-motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims seeking compensation for certain utility work performed pursuant to contracts between defendant Sette-Juliano Construction Corp. and various utility companies, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, such cross-motion granted and that portion of the complaint which seeks recovery against Aetna for utility work is dismissed.

There is no dispute that a surety’s obligations are limited to those it undertakes in its bond and that the bond attaches to the principal contract and must be construed in conjunction therewith (Carrols Equities Corp. v Villnave, 57 AD2d 1044, 1045, lv denied 42 NY2d 810).

In the matter at bar, the IAS Court erred when it held that the utility work constituted "additional work” which Sette-Juliano was required to perform to satisfy its obligations under the contract. In fact, Sette-Juliano was neither required nor authorized to perform the work without first being hired to do so by the utility companies. Moreover, the utility companies had the option, at the time in question, to do the work themselves, bring in an outside contractor to do the work, or hire Sette-Juliano, which was already at the job site. The utility companies chose the latter. In addition, there is no reason to conclude, as the IAS Court did, that the bond was issued by Aetna with the intention of covering the separate contracts, especially since, under the court’s determination, the bonds became insufficient, by approximately $1,000,000, to cover the cost of the construction project. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli 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 on or about May 19, 1995, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company’s cross-motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims seeking compensation for certain utility work performed pursuant to contracts between defendant Sette-Juliano Construction Corp. and various utility companies, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, such cross-motion granted and that portion of the complaint which seeks recovery against Aetna for utility work is dismissed.

There is no dispute that a surety’s obligations are limited to those it undertakes in its bond and that the bond attaches to the principal contract and must be construed in conjunction therewith (Carrols Equities Corp. v Villnave, 57 AD2d 1044, 1045, lv denied 42 NY2d 810).

In the matter at bar, the IAS Court erred when it held that the utility work constituted "additional work” which Sette-Juliano was required to perform to satisfy its obligations under the contract. In fact, Sette-Juliano was neither required nor authorized to perform the work without first being hired to do so by the utility companies. Moreover, the utility companies had the option, at the time in question, to do the work themselves, bring in an outside contractor to do the work, or hire Sette-Juliano, which was already at the job site. The utility companies chose the latter. In addition, there is no reason to conclude, as the IAS Court did, that the bond was issued by Aetna with the intention of covering the separate contracts, especially since, under the court’s determination, the bonds became insufficient, by approximately $1,000,000, to cover the cost of the construction project. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 183, 651 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varlotta-construction-corp-v-sette-juliano-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack