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.
ATLANTIC COAST FIREPROOFING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J. GREANEY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendant.
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK SURETY COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 14, 1996, inter alia, granting plaintiff material supplier's motion for summary judgment and awarding it the principal amount of $31,000 and denying defendants-appellants' cross motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 19, 1997, which inter alia, denied defendants-appellants' motion to vacate such order and judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff's sufficient showing of its entitlement to payment under its construction contract was unrebutted, and defendant failed to avail itself of the opportunity to obtain disclosure that might have shed light on this issue. The motion court correctly found that the subject labor and material payment bond, which contains no reference to State Finance Law § 137, does not state that it was issued pursuant to the requirements of the public entity, and clearly reflects the assumption of obligations broader than those required by statute, was a common-law bond (see, Scaccia Concrete Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 212 A.D.2d 225, 628 N.Y.S.2d 746). Thus, defendant's obligation extended to a broad contractual scope of claimants not restricted to parties in privity with the contractor or its subcontractor, was not subject to the statutory notice of claim requirement and was governed by the longer limitations period set forth in the bond. Vacatur of the judgment was properly denied because the bankruptcy removal merely enjoined the parties from proceeding in Supreme Court and did not divest it of jurisdiction (see, Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 989; compare, Artists' Representatives Ass'n, Inc. v. Haley, 26 A.D.2d 918, 274 N.Y.S.2d 442).
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find that they do not warrant a different result.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: December 16, 1997
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)