From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 2006
27 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8077.

March 14, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Zisholtz Zisholtz, LLP, Mineola (Stuart S. Zisholtz of counsel), for appellant.

Ross Cohen, LLP, New York (Charles Fastenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ., concur.


Plaintiff, a construction subcontractor, claims to be in privity with defendant tenant because plaintiff contracted with defendant's construction manager, rather than with a general contractor. However, regardless of whether the intermediary was a construction manager or a general contractor, plaintiff's claims are barred by various provisions of the construction management agreement incorporated by reference in plaintiff's subcontract and bid documents, which expressly preclude actions by third parties, including subcontractors, against defendant ( see Braun Equip. Co. v. Meli Borelli Assoc., 220 AD2d 312).


Summaries of

Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 2006
27 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Kaback Enterprises, Inc. v. Time, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KABACK ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. TIME, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 14, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1735
813 N.Y.S.2d 54

Citing Cases

Airflex Indus. v. Pabco Constr. Corp.

Citing caselaw, defendants argue that the "existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a…