Case Name: Valentin Sixto Castillo Gonzalez, Appellant, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent; Patricio Marquez et al., Appellants, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-07-03
Citations: 119 A.D.3d 432
Docket Number: 
Parties: Valentin Sixto Castillo Gonzalez, Appellant, v Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent. Patricio Marquez et al., Appellants, v Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent.
Judges: Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
Valentin Sixto Castillo Gonzalez, Appellant, v Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent. Patricio Marquez et al., Appellants, v Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al., Defendants, and Galaxy G.C. Group, LLC, Respondent.
[988 NYS2d 490]

Opinion:
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 AD2d 407 [1st Dept 1991]; Alicea v City of New York, 145 AD2d 315, 317-318 [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 AD2d 584, 585 [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.
Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.