Case Name: Henry A. Conolly, as Surviving Partner of the Firm of E. D. Conolly & Sons, Appellant and Respondent, v. Rosalie Hyams, as Executrix, etc., of Joel E. Hyams, Deceased, Respondent and Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02
Citations: 47 A.D. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry A. Conolly, as Surviving Partner of the Firm of E. D. Conolly & Sons, Appellant and Respondent, v. Rosalie Hyams, as Executrix, etc., of Joel E. Hyams, Deceased, Respondent and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 592–596

Head Matter:
Henry A. Conolly, as Surviving Partner of the Firm of E. D. Conolly & Sons, Appellant and Respondent, v. Rosalie Hyams, as Executrix, etc., of Joel E. Hyams, Deceased, Respondent and Appellant.
Action on a building contract -4 a failure to produce an architect’s certificate does not authorize a dismissal on the merits.
Where the complaint, in an action to recover the last installment on a building contract containing a provision requiring the contractor to obtain a certificate signed by the architect, before any installment should become payable, alleges full performance of the contract, which allegation is denied by the defendant, and the referee finds, upon conflicting evidence, that the plaintiff never obtained the architect’s certificate, the complaint is properly dismissed; the dismissal, however, should not be “ upon the merits,” as the determination of the referee is simply an adjudication that the action had been prematurely brought and amounts in effect to a nonsuit.
O’Brien, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Henry A. Conolly, as surviving partner of the firm of E. D. Conolly & Sons, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 4th day of August, 1899, upon the report of a referee ; also an appeal by the defendant, Rosalie Hyams, as executrix, etc., of Joel E. Hyams, deceased, from so much of the judgment as dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without costs.
Benjamin Yates, for the plaintiff.
Abram Kling, for the 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 plaintiffs 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 evidence the referee found for the defendant and dismissed the complaint.
The plaintiff was bound to produce the certificate before he was éntitled to his payment, and that certificate was a condition, precedent to his right to be paid in full. Until he procured it he was not entitled to recover. (Weeks v. O'Brien, 141 N. Y. 199.)
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 he modified by inserting after the word " dismissed," the words " but not upon the merits," and as so modified be affirmed, with costs to the defendant respondent.
Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett and Ingraham, JJ., concurred; O'Brien, J., dissented.