From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Southeast v. Seaboard Surety Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The performance bond issued by the defendant Seaboard Surety Company was issued to protect the plaintiff Town of Southeast in the event that the defendant Horizon Construction Corp. failed to complete certain site improvements in the Bailey Manor subdivision. Because there is no evidence of intent to benefit third parties, the appellant, as an unpaid subcontractor, has no right to recover from the bond proceeds as an intended third-party beneficiary (see, Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 N.Y.2d 38, 43-44; Scales-Douwes Corp. v. Paulaura Realty Corp., 24 N.Y.2d 724, 726; Fosmire v. National Sur. Co., 229 N.Y. 44; HNC Realty Co. v. Bay View Towers Apts., 64 A.D.2d 417, 424). The Supreme Court therefore properly dismissed the appellant's cross claim. To the extent that our decision may be inconsistent with a prior order of the Supreme Court (Dickinson, J.), which granted Peckham Materials Corporation intervenor status, we note only that we are not bound by the law of the case (see, Detko v. McDonald's Rests., 198 A.D.2d 208, 209).

As to the appellant's counterclaim against the Town for unjust enrichment, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the order of the Supreme Court (Dickinson, J.), granting the appellant leave to intervene, granted the appellant the right to seek a declaratory judgment in this case, but denied the appellant leave to intervene to assert additional claims, such as a counterclaim sounding in unjust enrichment. Moreover, the Town is required by law to use the bond proceeds to complete the improvements in question, and to refund to the surety any amount not needed to complete the bonded work (see, Town Law § 277 [e]; Town of Wappinger v. Republic Ins. Co., 97 A.D.2d 840; Town of Shawangunk v. Goldwil Props. Corp., 61 A.D.2d 693, 695). We therefore find no basis for the counterclaim sounding in unjust enrichment. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Town of Southeast v. Seaboard Surety Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Town of Southeast v. Seaboard Surety Company

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF SOUTHEAST, Respondent, v. SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 812

Citing Cases

Town of Southeast v. Seaboard Sur. Co.

Decided December 5, 1995 Appeal from (2d Dept: 208 A.D.2d 520) APPEALS ON CONSTITUTIONAL…

Gillies v. Nat'l Fire Ins. of Hartford

"[S]urety bonds, like all contracts, are to be fairly construed so as to effectuate the intent of the parties…