Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Piccirilli v. Benjamin
Plaintiff appeals from both the order and the judgment, and defendant cross-appeals from the judgment. [FN1] Initially, defendant failed to preserve his contention that plaintiff's fraud in the inducement claim should not have been presented to the jury as it is duplicative of his breach of contract claim ( see Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Piccirilli v. Benjamin
Plaintiff appeals from both the order and the judgment, and defendant cross-appeals from the judgment. [FN1] Initially, defendant failed to preserve his contention that plaintiff's fraud in the inducement claim should not have been presented to the jury as it is duplicative of his breach of contract claim ( see Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kaufman v. P&G Brokerage Inc.
Moreover, it is well settled that the [*8]obligation to perform to the third-party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract' " ( Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Cashin Assoc., P.C. , 111 AD3d 881 , 882 [2d Dept 2013] [quoting Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996])).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kaufman v. P&G Brokerage Inc.
Moreover, it is well settled that the [*8]obligation to perform to the third-party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract' " ( Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Cashin Assoc., P.C. , 111 AD3d 881 , 882 [2d Dept 2013] [quoting Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996])).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ditech Holding Corporation
Assistance, Inc. v. Graham, 143 N.Y.S.3d 380, 385 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting Aievoli v. Farley, 636 N.Y.S.2d 833, 833 (App. Div. 1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Bright Light Home Care Services, Inc. v. Jeffries-El
“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by' the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” (Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y., 112 AD3d 594 , 596 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “ ‘In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Ass'n v. Cashin Associates
Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” (Aievoli v Farley, 223 AD2d 613, 614 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Belgrave Owners v OR Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 352 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Ass'n v. Cashin Associates
Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” (Aievoli v Farley, 223 AD2d 613, 614 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Belgrave Owners v OR Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 352 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CY Farms, LLC v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
Co. v Meridien Hotels, 184 AD2d 312, 313 [1992]; Tambrands, Inc. v Lockwood Greene Engrs., 178 AD2d 406, 408 [1991]; see generally Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 NY2d 38, 43-45 [1985]; Aievoli v Farley, 223 AD2d 613, 614 [1996]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
243-249 Holding Co. v. Infante
Co., 37 NY2d 211, 219 [1975]; Aievoli v Farley, 223 AD2d 613, 614 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Financial Assistance, Inc. v. Graham
"A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must allege: (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for its benefit, and (3) that the benefit to it is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate it if the benefit is lost" ( Board of Mgrs. of 100 Congress Condominium v SDS Congress, LLC , 152 AD3d 478, 480 ; see Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y. , 112 AD3d 594 , 596). "'In determining third-party beneficiary status …
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority
“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” (Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y., 112 AD3d 594 , 596 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 336 [1983]). “ ‘I…
discussed
Cited "see"
Board of Education of Northport-East Northport Union Free School District v. Long Island Power Authority
“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” (Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y., 112 AD3d 594 , 596 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 336 [1983]). “ ‘I…
discussed
Cited "see"
Board of Education of Northport-East Northport Union Free School District v. Long Island Power Authority
“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” (Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y., 112 AD3d 594 , 596 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 336 [1983]). “ ‘I…
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Huntington v. Long Island Power Authority
“A party asserting rights as a third-party beneficiary must establish (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for [its] benefit and (3) that the benefit to [it] is sufficiently immediate, rather than incidental, to indicate the assumption by the contracting parties of a duty to compensate [it] if the benefit is lost” (Nanomedicon, LLC v Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y., 112 AD3d 594 , 596 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 336 [1983]). “ ‘I…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph Aievoli
v.
James E. Farley
v.
James E. Farley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 22, 1996.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated March 7, 1995, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint, which asserts causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, contending that he had contracted with an individual other than the plaintiffs. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract with the defendant.
[*614] The defendant’s motion was properly denied. The plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendant’s motion was sufficient to raise an issue as to whether they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the subject contract (see, Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co., 66 NY2d 38, 44-45; Trans-Orient Mar. Corp. v Star Trading & Mar., 925 F2d 566, 573; Septembertide Publ. B.V. v Stein & Day, 884 F2d 675, 679). "In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement * * * Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” (Trans-Orient Mar. Corp. v Star Trading & Mar., supra, at 573).
The defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs’ fraud cause of action was insufficiently stated because the allegations of fraud relate solely to his alleged breach of contract is not preserved for appellate review. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.