Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 22, 2005, which, in an action under Lien Law article 3-A, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant-respondent to dismiss the second cause of action in the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The general contractor defaulted on its obligations to the
Plaintiff, a subcontractor of the general contractor, claims entitlement to the retainage funds on the theory that they were Lien Law article 3-A trust assets. The funds, however, were never due the contractor, and the contractor possessed no future right of action with respect to them. Accordingly, they were never assets of a contractor’s trust (cf. City of New York v Cross Bay Contr. Corp., 93 NY2d 14 [1999]). A subcontractor is a beneficiary of trust assets received by the contractor or to which the contractor is entitled (see Quantum Corporate Funding Ltd. v L.P.G. Assoc., 246 AD2d 320 , 322 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 814 [1998]). The connection between the contractor and the claimed assets necessary to plaintiffs recovery as a trust beneficiary does not exist here. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
Cases cited
- City of New York v. Cross Bay Contracting Corp. 93 NY2d 14 p. 260
- Quantum Corporate Funding Ltd. v. L.P.G. Associates, Inc. 246 AD2d 320 at 322 p. 260