Comsewogue Union Free School District v. Allied-Trent Roofing Systems, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 February 2005 |
Docket Number | 2003-07034.,2004-01580. |
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 01308,790 N.Y.S.2d 220,15 A.D.3d 523 |
Parties | COMSEWOGUE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. ALLIED-TRENT ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, and MARANGOS CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
In 1989 the plaintiff Comsewogue Union Free School District (hereinafter the District) undertook a roof reconstruction project for five of its schools, hiring the respondents, Marangos Construction Corp. and Triple M Roofing Corp., to install the replacement roofs. After the roofs developed leaks and other problems, the District commenced this action in 1997 against the respondents and other defendants. The only cause of action asserted against the respondents was to recover damages for breach of contract, which, as the Supreme Court determined in granting the respondents' separate motions for summary judgment, was time-barred.
In opposition to the respondents' motions for summary judgment, the District contended that its submissions established an additional, unpleaded cause of action alleging breach of warranty which the Supreme Court was required to consider, citing Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co. (46 NY2d 276, 280 [1978]) and its progeny. While modern practice permits a plaintiff to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action which is supported by the plaintiff's submissions (id.; see Gold Connection Discount Jewelers v American Dist. Tel. Co., 212 AD2d 577, 578 [1995]; Ayala v V & O...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Begley v. City of N.Y.
...on an unpleaded cause of action which is supported by the plaintiff's submissions” ( Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Allied–Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 523, 524, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220;see Lombardo v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 935, 936, 893 N.Y.S.2d 78), here, the plaintiffs of......
-
VFC Partners 19, LLC v. Romaz Props., Ltd.
...by it (see Begley v. City of New York, 111 AD3d 5, 972 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2d Dept 2013] ; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Allied–Trent Roofing Sys., 15 AD3d 523, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220 [2d Dept 2005] ). To make out a claim for fraud in the inducement or a defense premised on it, the claimant must......
-
Trump Intern. Hotel & Tower v. Carrier Corp.
...been addressed. 77. See Service Agreement ¶ 4, 78. See infra Part IV.C. 79. Cf. Comsewogue Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 523, 524, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220 (2d Dep't 2005) (affirming lower court's rejection of plaintiff's alternative cause of action for breach ......
-
Mackauer v. Parikh
...N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 799–800, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162 ; Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Allied–Trent Roofing Sys., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 523, 524, 790 N.Y.S.2d 220 ).For the foregoing reasons, I vote to reverse the order insofar as appealed ...