RENAISSANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, plf-ap, v. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC., (NOW KNOWN AS PHOENIX BUILDING RESTORER INC.), def, CENTRAL HARLEM PARTNERSHIP PLAZA, LLC def-res

337. RENAISSANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, plf-ap, v. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC., (NOW KNOWN AS PHOENIX BUILDING RESTORER INC.), def, CENTRAL HARLEM PARTNERSHIP PLAZA, LLC def-res — Zetlin & De Chiara, LLP, New York (James H. Rowland of counsel), for ap — Silverman Shin Byrne & Gilchrest PLLC, New York (Donald F. Schneider of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered October 31, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Central Harlem Partnership Plaza, LLC, Suna/Levine Industries, Inc., and J.E. Levine Builders' (the moving defendants) motion to dismiss the breach of contract causes of action as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

337. RENAISSANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, plf-ap, v. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC., (NOW KNOWN AS PHOENIX BUILDING RESTORER INC.), def, CENTRAL HARLEM PARTNERSHIP PLAZA, LLC def-res — Zetlin & De Chiara, LLP, New York (James H. Rowland of counsel), for ap — Silverman Shin Byrne & Gilchrest PLLC, New York (Donald F. Schneider of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered October 31, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Central Harlem Partnership Plaza, LLC, Suna/Levine Industries, Inc., and J.E. Levine Builders’ (the moving defendants) motion to dismiss the breach of contract causes of action as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The breach of contract causes of action against the moving defendants are based on allegations of breaches by defendant Phoenix Construction, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the moving defendants breached their contractual obligations to it because the remedial work they retained Phoenix to perform was defective and because they failed to properly supervise Phoenix’s work. However, plaintiff’s claim to be a third-party beneficiary of the remediation contract is “conclusively dispose[d] of” by the contract’s plain terms (Fortis Fin. Servs. v. Fimat Futures USA, 290 AD2d 383, 383 [1st Dept 2002]). None of the duties that plaintiff claims are owed by the moving defendants can be found in the contract itself. A third-party beneficiary has no greater right to enforce a contract than the contracting parties themselves (see e.g. AMBAC Assur. Corp. v. EMC Mtge. LLC, 39 Misc 3d 1240[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50954[U], *8 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013], affd 121 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2014]).

RENAISSANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, plf-ap, v. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC., (NOW KNOWN AS PHOENIX BUILDING RESTORER INC.), def, CENTRAL HARLEM PARTNERSHIP PLAZA, LLC def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal