New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 757 (2026)

Void provisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 757. Void provisions. The following provisions of construction
contracts shall be void and unenforceable:
  1. A provision, covenant, clause or understanding in, collateral to or
affecting a construction contract, with the exception of a contract with
a material supplier, that makes the contract subject to the laws of
another state or that requires any litigation, arbitration or other
dispute resolution proceeding arising from the contract to be conducted
in another state.
  2. A provision, covenant, clause or understanding in, collateral to or
affecting a construction contract stating that a party to the contract
cannot suspend performance under the contract if another party to the
contract fails to make prompt payments under the contract.
  3. A provision, covenant, clause or understanding in, collateral to or
affecting a construction contract stating that expedited arbitration as
expressly provided for and in the manner established by section seven
hundred fifty-six-b of this article is unavailable to one or both
parties.
  4. A provision, covenant, clause or understanding in collateral to or
affecting a construction contract establishing payment provisions which
differ from those established in subdivision three of section seven
hundred fifty-six-a and section seven hundred fifty-six-b as applicable.
  5. A provision, covenant, clause or understanding in, collateral to or
affecting a construction contract requiring retainage as expressly
provided for by section seven hundred fifty-six-c of this article in an
amount exceeding five percent of the contract sum.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: In Re the Arbitration Between Capital Siding & Constr., LLC, 138 A.D.3d 1265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016).
In Re the Arbitration Between Capital Siding & Constr., LLC, 138 A.D.3d 1265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “” The PPA also states that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this article,” the terms and conditions of the parties’ written agreement will supersede the PPA’s provisions (General Business Law § 756-a). However, General Business Law § 757 (3) specifically directs that “[a]…”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. ASD Gem Realty LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “The PPA was amended in 2019 to, among other things, prohibit parties from contractually exempting themselves from the statute's payment provisions ( see General Business Law § 757[4] ["[t]he following provisions of construction contracts shall be void and unenforceable .”
HVS, LLC v. Fortney & Weygandt, Inc., 49 Misc. 3d 1143 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the provision in the parties’ agreement which locates the forum for disputes arising from the agreement in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and states that it shall be enforceable pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Annotated chapter 2711 is void and unenforceable pursuant to…”
Hugh O'Kane Elec. Co. v. MasTec North Am., Inc., 19 A.D.3d 126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Although not applicable here, we also note General Business Law § 757, effective January 14, 2003 after the subject subcontract was entered into, which voids choice-of-law and choice-of-forum clauses in construction contracts, excepting contracts with material suppliers, and…”
Hugh O'Kane Elec. Co., LLC v. MasTec North Am., Inc., 16 A.D.3d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Although not applicable here, we also note General Business Law § 757, effective January 14, 2003 after the subject subcontract was entered into, which voids choice-of-law and choice-of-forum clauses in construction contracts, excepting contracts with material suppliers, and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.