Opinion
No. NSC 253/10.
2010-09-1
Gary TORRES, Plaintiff(s), v. TEMPLE B'NAI ISRAEL, Defendants(s).
Gary Torres, Plaintiff, pro se, Valley Stream. Deborah C. Levine, Esq., Hempstead, for Defendant.
Gary Torres, Plaintiff, pro se, Valley Stream. Deborah C. Levine, Esq., Hempstead, for Defendant.
GARY F. KNOBEL, J.
This is a small claims breach of contract action to recover monies ($4375.00) for the damages that were allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, Gary Torres, due to the cancellation by defendant Temple B'Nai Israel (“Temple”) of a fundraiser that was scheduled to take place in Temple B'nai Israel of Elmont, on Saturday, December 19, 2009.
The subject contract was signed on September 24, 2009, between an officer/ representative of Temple B'nai Israel and an individual employed by Zenith Productions, a non-party hired by Gary Torres for the purpose of promoting a fundraiser. The contract is a rental agreement drafted by Temple B'nai Israel that contained many restrictions; the most relevant ones to the dispute at bar permitted alcoholic beverages to be served only as part of a meal or reception, and strictly forbade the sale of alcoholic beverages at the fundraising party. The provision pertaining to the possible cancellation of the contract stated that the “Temple reserves the right to cancel [the] contract at any time. Renter must cancel no later than 2 months prior to [the] affair for a full refund providing the room is re-rented. (If room is not re-rented, deposit will not be refunded).”
The threshold issue for the Court to determine is whether the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary to the subject contract and consequently has standing to sue even though the contract was signed by an employee of non-party Zenith Productions, a company with whom the plaintiff separately contracted with to provide assistance in the promotion of a fund raising party.
Parties who assert third-party beneficiary rights under a contract must establish “(1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [their] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [them] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [them] if the benefit is lost” (Mendel v. Henry Phipps Plaza, 6 NY3d 783, quoting Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314 (1983)). In applying these principles to the case at bar, the Court finds that the subject contract existed for the purpose of benefitting the plaintiff, thus making him a third-party beneficiary to the contract who can seek to enforce his rights under the contract since (1) the plaintiff's name is written on the front page of the contract in the “name” portion of the contract, signifying who the individual is that is renting out the ballroom of the temple, and (2) the plaintiff's name is written on the Supplemental Ballroom Rental Agreement for the same purpose set forth above.
The Court will thus now turn to the central issue in this case: whether the defendant breached the subject contract and is required to compensate the plaintiff for the losses suffered as a result of the cancellation of the contract four days prior to the scheduled fundraiser.
The defendant's rabbi testified that once the Temple found out that an agent of Zenith Productions was attempting to receive a twenty-four hour permit for the purpose of serving alcohol, the Temple decided to cancel the event that was scheduled to take place. The defendant argued that the Temple had the right, pursuant to the terms in the contract, to cancel the fundraiser at any time.
In an instance where an agreement is clear and unambiguous, a court is not free to alter it and impose its personal notions of fairness ( see, Welsbach Elec. Corp v. MasTech North America, Inc., 7 NY.3d 624 citing Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470 (2004). Here, the clause in the contract which permits the Temple to cancel the contract at any time is stated clearly and unambiguously. The Court must then follow the terms reached in the contract rather then granting a judgment based upon what may or may not seem fairer to the plaintiff who suffered the loss (Id). The instant case is not one that involved terms or clauses that are found buried in the boilerplate of the contract nor is it one that involved a contract in fine print that may have not been seen by a party to the contract. Rather, the clause is printed clearly and explicitly on the front page of the contract.
The plaintiff, however, failed to present sufficient evidence at trial that the alcoholic beverages, if permitted by the Police Department to be served, would be served only as part of the reception and would not be sold. Consequently, the Court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant Temple B'nai Israel breached the subject contract.
Accordingly, the small claims complaint is dismissed.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
See judgment.