From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BRAUN EQUIP., INC. v. MELI BORELLI ASSOC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 1995
220 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

In Braun Equipment Co. Inc. v. Borelli Associates, 220 AD2d 312 [1st Dept. 1995], the court found that a subcontractor had no recourse against an owner where the subcontract expressly precluded third-party privity.

Summary of this case from SUPERB GEN. CONTR. CO. v. NEW YORK

Opinion

October 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).


The prime contract at bar (the "Construction Management Agreement") expressly precludes third-party privity. The subcontract (the "Plumbing Contract") has language incorporating the prime contract's terms by reference. Accordingly, the subcontractor is not in privity with the tenant (who acts as an owner for present purposes), and the subcontractor's recourse is against the prime contractor only ( see, Alvord Swift v. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 280).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

BRAUN EQUIP., INC. v. MELI BORELLI ASSOC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 1995
220 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

In Braun Equipment Co. Inc. v. Borelli Associates, 220 AD2d 312 [1st Dept. 1995], the court found that a subcontractor had no recourse against an owner where the subcontract expressly precluded third-party privity.

Summary of this case from SUPERB GEN. CONTR. CO. v. NEW YORK
Case details for

BRAUN EQUIP., INC. v. MELI BORELLI ASSOC

Case Details

Full title:BRAUN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MELI BORELLI ASSOCIATES et…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 549

Citing Cases

SUPERB GEN. CONTR. CO. v. NEW YORK

(see; Eastern States Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Crow Construction Co., 153 AD2d 522 [1st Dept. 1989]).…

Palma Realty Assocs. Ltd. v. Bldg Oceanside LLC

Oceanside argues that dismissal is proper because there is no contract between itself and Palma, and because…