Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Peckham Road Corp. v. Town of Putnam Valley
Citations: 218 A.D.2d 789; 631 N.Y.S.2d 172; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 28, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
A plaintiff appeals an order from the Supreme Court of Putnam County that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to certain defendants, dismissing the complaint against them. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and violations of the Lien Law related to work performed for Wagon Production, Inc., the general contractor for a road project for the Town of Putnam Valley. Although the Town authorized the release of $42,500 to Wagon, Wagon did not pay the plaintiff, as it was defunct. Under New York's Lien Law, payments to contractors do not constitute a diversion of trust funds, allowing the Town's action to release the funds. Additionally, attorneys for Wagon did not violate the Lien Law as they were not the actual recipients of the funds. The plaintiff's claim under Federal Civil Rights Law (42 USC 1983) was dismissed because it failed to demonstrate deprivation of a constitutional right, as there was no recognized property interest in the funds. Breach of contract claims against the Town and its employees were also dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely notice of claim. The court found that the escrow account was established for the Town's benefit, not the plaintiff's. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims against Wagon's attorneys for breach of contract were rejected since agents do not incur personal liability for a disclosed principal's contracts unless there is clear intent to be personally bound. The evidence presented did not support such intent. Other arguments by the plaintiff were either unpreserved for appeal or without merit. The order was affirmed with costs awarded to the respondents.