From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milnor Constr. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1990
163 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is denied, and, if the file has been transferred to New York County, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (CPLR 511 [d]).

The forum clause in the parties' contract provided, in relevant part, that they had agreed "that any and all claims asserted by or * * * against the City [of New York] arising under this Contract or related thereto shall be heard and determined * * * in the courts of the State of New York * * * located in the City and County of New York".

In this breach of contract action, the plaintiff Milnor Construction Corp. only named the Board of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) as a party defendant and set venue in Kings County, the principal location of the Board. The Board successfully moved pursuant to CPLR 501 to change the venue of the action to New York County based upon the forum provision in the parties' contract. We now reverse.

It is not disputed that the forum provision, as written, only applies to actions where the city is a party. Further, there is no claim by the Board, which drafted the contract, that the clause inadvertently left out reference to actions where the Board and not the city is a party. Rather, the Board merely argues that the clause was intended to cover the situation where it and not the city is a party. However, contrary to the Board's contention, this intent cannot be ascertained from the record before the Supreme Court, which contains only certain provisions of the parties' contract. The Board does not contend that the city could not be made a party to an action involving the instant contract. Thus, interpreting the clause as limited to actions against the Board in which the city is also a party does not render it without force or effect (cf., Reape v. New York News, 122 A.D.2d 29).

Therefore, the Board's motion to change the venue of this action on the ground of the forum provision in the parties' contract is denied. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Milnor Constr. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1990
163 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Milnor Constr. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:MILNOR CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF…

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

Date published: Jul 2, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 175

Citing Cases

Weingarten v. B.O.E. of City Sch. Dist. of N.Y

Defendants argue that for venue purposes pursuant to CPLR 504 (2), the Board of Education of the City of New…

Weingarten v. BOARD OF EDUC.

Defendants argue that for venue purposes pursuant to CPLR 504 (2), the Board of Education of the City of New…