Dipizio Constr. Co., Inc. v Erie Canal Harbor Dev. Corp.

Dipizio Constr. Co., Inc. v Erie Canal Harbor Dev. Corp. 2017 NY Slip Op 02214 Decided on March 24, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 24, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
209 CA 16-00194

[*1]DIPIZIO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

v

ERIE CANAL HARBOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (ACTION NO. 1.) ————————————————————————



DIPIZIO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

v

ERIE CANAL HARBOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (ACTION NO. 2.) ————————————————————————



DIPIZIO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v

NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT, ERIE CANAL HARBOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SAM HOYT, THOMAS DEE AND MARK E. SMITH, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (ACTION NO. 3.)

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL W. ISAACS, PLLC, NEW YORK CITY (DANIEL W. ISAACS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

TORRES, LENTZ, GAMELL, GARY & RITTMASTER, LLP, JERICHO (BENJAMIN D. LENTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

MANCABELLI LAW PLLC, ORCHARD PARK (PATRICIA A. MANCABELLI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment and order (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered April 24, 2015. The judgment and order, among other things, determined that plaintiff Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America is the real party in interest.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment and order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent our decision in Peerless Ins. Co. v Talia Constr. Co. (272 AD2d 919) may be construed to provide that acts constituting bad faith on the part of a surety are restricted to fraud and collusion, it should instead be read to provide that fraud and collusion are merely examples of such acts (see generally Maryland Cas. Co. v Grace , 292 NY 194, 200).

Entered: March 24, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court