Opinion
15364 Index No. 160345/18 Case No. 2021–03897
02-24-2022
HAI HONG CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NAB 2000 REALTY, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael Cassell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Craig A. Blumberg, New York (Craig A. Blumberg of counsel), for respondent.
Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho (Michael Cassell of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Craig A. Blumberg, New York (Craig A. Blumberg of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 11, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its first cause of action for breach of contract and directed defendant to endorse a check issued by its property insurance company to both parties and provide it to plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated to that extent.
The motion court erred in finding, upon a search of the record, that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its claim to recover the proceeds of a check issued by defendant's insurance company to both parties for plaintiff's emergency rehabilitation work on defendant's fire-damaged building, as the parties’ contract does not unambiguously support plaintiff's claim (see generally Castillo v. Big Apple Hyundai, 177 A.D.3d 473, 113 N.Y.S.3d 680 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Pereira v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 159 A.D.3d 566, 567, 70 N.Y.S.3d 51 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Under the contract, plaintiff agreed that it would not seek payment directly from defendant, but only from defendant's insurance proceeds. However, the contract did not entitle plaintiff to bypass defendant and seek payment directly from its insurer or to do so without providing defendant with invoices substantiating the work it claims to have completed. Contrary to the court's finding, there is no evidence that the insurance company inspected the premises and deemed plaintiff's work to be complete before issuing the check. In fact, there is no evidence as to how the insurance company came to issue the check in that amount for plaintiff's services.