Opinion
03-24-2017
DIPIZIO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ERIE CANAL HARBOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Dipizio Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation, Defendant–Respondent. (Action No. 2.) Dipizio Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, doing Business as Empire State Development, Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation, Sam Hoyt, Thomas Dee and Mark E. Smith, Defendants–Respondents. (Action No. 3.).
Law Offices of Daniel W. Isaacs, PLLC, New York City (Daniel W. Isaacs of Counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. Torres, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho (Benjamin D. Lentz of Counsel), for plaintiff-respondent. Mancabelli Law PLLC, Orchard Park (Patricia A. Mancabelli of Counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Law Offices of Daniel W. Isaacs, PLLC, New York City (Daniel W. Isaacs of Counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Torres, Lentz, Gamell, Gary & Rittmaster, LLP, Jericho (Benjamin D. Lentz of Counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Mancabelli Law PLLC, Orchard Park (Patricia A. Mancabelli of Counsel), for defendants-respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent our decision in Peerless Ins. Co. v. Talia Constr. Co., 272 A.D.2d 919, 708 N.Y.S.2d 223 may be construed to provide that acts constituting bad faith on the part of a surety are restricted to fraud and collusion, it should instead be read to provide that fraud and collusion are merely examples of such acts (see generally Maryland Cas. Co. v. Grace, 292 N.Y. 194, 200, 54 N.E.2d 362 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment and order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.