From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Centennial Elevator Indus. v. JRM Constr. Mgmt.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 2023
212 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

17066 Index No. 652810/20 Case No. 2022–01092

01-12-2023

CENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JRM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

The Lambos Firm, LLP, Tarrytown (Carol N. Lambos of counsel), for appellant. Clark Guldin, New York (Janesa Urbano of counsel), for respondent.


The Lambos Firm, LLP, Tarrytown (Carol N. Lambos of counsel), for appellant.

Clark Guldin, New York (Janesa Urbano of counsel), for respondent.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered August 19, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly dismissed the complaint based on the mediation provision in the parties’ master subcontractor agreement (MSA) as incorporated by reference into the purchase order. The mediation provision was enforceable against plaintiff even though plaintiff did not sign the MSA because the language of the purchase order, which plaintiff signed, unambiguously reflected the parties’ intent that the MSA govern the parties’ relationship until the parties formally execute the MSA (see Gabriel Capital, L.P. v. CAIB Investmentbank AG., 28 A.D.3d 376, 378, 814 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1st Dept. 2006], lv dismissed 7 N.Y.3d 922, 827 N.Y.S.2d 690, 860 N.E.2d 992 [2006] ; Liberty Mgt. & Constr. v. Fifth Ave. & Sixty–Sixth St. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 73, 77–79, 620 N.Y.S.2d 827 [1st Dept. 1995] ). Because the MSA required plaintiff to mediate disputes arising from the agreement as a condition precedent to commencing litigation, and plaintiff failed to submit the dispute to mediation before commencing this action, the complaint was correctly dismissed (see Archstone Dev. LLC v. Renval Constr. LLC, 156 A.D.3d 432, 433, 67 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2017] ; MCC Dev. Corp. v. Perla, 81 A.D.3d 474, 474, 916 N.Y.S.2d 102 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 715, 2011 WL 5526533 [2011] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Centennial Elevator Indus. v. JRM Constr. Mgmt.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 2023
212 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Centennial Elevator Indus. v. JRM Constr. Mgmt.

Case Details

Full title:Centennial Elevator Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JRM…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 12, 2023

Citations

212 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 152
179 N.Y.S.3d 586

Citing Cases

Island Consol., E. Materials Corp. v. Grassi & Co.

Contractual provisions that place a requirement on plaintiffs to file a notice of claim or to seek mediation…