Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Manuel DE LA CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CADDELL DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO., INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered March 7, 2008, which, in an action to recover prevailing wages allegedly owed to plaintiffs employees as third-party beneficiaries of contracts between defendant employer and various municipal agencies of the City of New York, denied defendants' motion to change venue to New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although plaintiff employees may be third-party beneficiaries of the contracts between defendant employer and the City (see 22 A.D.3d 404, 405, 804 N.Y.S.2d 58 [2005] ), and, as such, bound by the terms of those contracts, the New York County forum selection clauses contained in the contracts simply do not apply to this action because, by their express terms, the clauses apply only to “claims asserted by or against the City” (see Milnor Constr. Corp. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 163 A.D.2d 282, 557 N.Y.S.2d 175 [1990]; L-3 Communications Corp. v. Channel Tech., 291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 366 [2002] ). The parties to the contracts could easily have included language in the forum selection clauses stating that all claims by or against the employer, or all claims “arising under or related to” the contracts, must be brought in New York County, in which event the venue of this action would have to be changed to New York County (see Buhler v. French Woods Festival of Performing Arts, 154 A.D.2d 303, 305, 546 N.Y.S.2d 591 [1989] ), but they did not.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 20, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)