You are here: / / Subcontractor’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Should Not Have...

Subcontractor’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Despite Absence of Privity

The Second Department determined the motion for dismissal (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) of a breach of contract/quantum meruit cause of action brought by a subcontractor should not have been granted. The documents submitted by the defendant did not eliminate the possibility that the defendant’s dealings with the subcontractor could have given rise to a breach of contract action in the absence of privity:

Generally, a subcontractor may not assert a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against a party with whom it is not in privity … . Nevertheless, “a subcontractor can sometimes state a cause of action [alleging] breach of contract or unjust enrichment against the owner where direct dealing between the owner and the subcontractor justify imposing an obligation upon the owner despite the initial lack of privity between them” … . Vertical Progression, Inc. v Canyon Johnson Urban Funds, 2015 NY Slip Op 01939, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

You might also like
MAINTENANCE WORKER’S BACK INJURY FROM CARRYING A HEAVY BAG OF GARBAGE WAS CAUSED BY A RISK INHERENT IN THE WORK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Former Parking Enforcement Officer Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether Town Abolished Her Civil Service Position in Bad Faith
Court Should Have Allowed Service of an Order to Show Cause by Means Other than Personal Delivery after Plaintiff Failed to Effect Personal Delivery Despite Due Diligence
Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period
A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY); BUT A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6) FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Statutes of Limitations for Actions Stemming from the Alleged Fraudulent Transfer... Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion...