Opinion
2014-07-3
Valentin Sixto Castillo GONZALEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, et al., Defendants, Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, etc., Defendant–Respondent. Patricio Marquez, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, et al., Defendants, Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, etc., Defendant–Respondent.
Law Offices of William Cafaro, New York (Bill Cafaro of counsel), for appellants. Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale (Heather P. Harrison of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of William Cafaro, New York (Bill Cafaro of counsel), for appellants. Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale (Heather P. Harrison of counsel), for respondent.
Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered April 5, 2013, and on or about April 5, 2013, which granted defendant Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC's (Galaxy) motions to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against it, and denied plaintiffs' respective cross motions for leave to amend the complaints, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly granted defendant Galaxy's motions to dismiss the initial complaints, as those pleadings failed to allege facts sufficient to show that plaintiffs were the intended third-party beneficiaries of any wage and benefits provisions set forth in the general contract ( see Oursler v. Women's Interart Ctr., 170 A.D.2d 407, 566 N.Y.S.2d 295 [1st Dept.1991];Alicea v. City of New York, 145 A.D.2d 315, 317–318, 534 N.Y.S.2d 983 [1st Dept.1988] ). Because the proposed amended complaints suffer from the same deficiencies, the court also properly denied leave to amend ( see Davis & Davis v. Morson, 286 A.D.2d 584, 585, 730 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept.2001] ).
We do not consider plaintiff's arguments under the Davis–Bacon act since they were raised for the first time on appeal. FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.