Case Name: CONOLLY v. HYAMS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02-09
Citations: 62 N.Y.S. 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONOLLY v. HYAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 62
Pages: 567–570

Head Matter:
(47 App. Div. 592.)
CONOLLY v. HYAMS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 9, 1900.)
1. Building Contract—Installments—Recovery—Architect’s Certificate.
Where a contractor agreed to erect a building for a given price, payable in installments, on the architect’s certificate, the obtaining of such certificate was a condition precedent to the contractor’s right to recover a final installment due under such contract.
2. Referee’s Finding—Effect—Dismissal without Prejudice.
Where a referee found that a contractor was not entitled to recover a final installment due on a building contract, because no architect’s certificate had been obtained as required, such determination did not prevent the contractor from recovering such installment after obtaining the certificate; and hence the referee should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice, only, and not on the merits.
O’Brien, J., dissenting.
Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by Henry A. Conolly, as surviving partner, etc., against Rosalie Hyams, as executrix of Joel Hyams, deceased. From a judgment in favor of defendant, on a referee’s report dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits, he appeals.
Modified.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RTJMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Benjamin Yates, for appellant.
Abram Kling, for respondent.

Opinion:
RUMSEY, J.
The action was brought to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The complaint was dismissed without costs. Both parties appeal,—the plaintiff from so much of the judgment as dismissed the complaint, and the defendant from so much as refused costs to her. The plaintiff contracted to put up a building for the defendant's testator at a certain price, to be paid in installments. It was provided in the contract that a certificate should be obtained from and signed by the architect before an installment should become payable. The action was brought to recover the last installment. The plaintiff alleged full performance of the contract. That was denied by the defendant. There was a serious conflict of evidence as to whether the certificate had been procured from the architect, entitling the plaintiff to recover the last installment; the plaintiff insisting and giving evidence that the certificate had been given, and the architect testifying that he did not think he gave a certificate, and that it had never been asked for. Upon that issue the referee found for the defendant, and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff was bound to produce the certificate before he was entitled to his payment, and that certificate was a condition precedent to his right to be paid in full. Until he produced it, he was not entitled to recover. Weeks v. O'Brien, 141 N. Y. 199, 36 N. E. 185. The finding of the referee was sustained by the evidence. Therefore his dismissal of the complaint was correct. But the failure to obtain a certificate did not take away permanently the right of the plaintiff to be paid whatever was due to him upon the contract. When that certificate shall have been obtained, the defect in his cause of action will be supplied. The determination of the referee was not, therefore, an adjudication that the plaintiff could never recover, but was simply a determination that the bringing' of the action had been premature, and amounted in effect to a nonsuit. The complaint should not, therefore, have been dismissed absolutely, and the judgment should be modified to read that the complaint was dismissed, but "not upon the merits." The question of costs was within the discretion of the referee, and, upon the whole case, we see no reason for interfering with the manner in which he exercised it. The defendant's appeal should therefore fail.
The judgment should be modified by inserting after the word "dismissed" the words "but not upon the merits," and, as so modified, be affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur, except O'BRIEN, J., who dissents.