A New York Supreme Court judge has ruled to change the venue for the case of J&A Concrete Corp. v. Everest Reinsurance Company, affecting a dispute over a construction contract and payment claims. The decision, issued on May 7, 2026, by Judge Fidel E. Gomez, grants a motion by several defendants to move the case from Bronx County to Albany County. This ruling is significant as it addresses the proper venue for disputes arising from contractual agreements in the construction industry.
The case involves J&A Concrete Corp. (the plaintiff) and several defendants, including Everest Reinsurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. The dispute centers on a subcontract agreement between J&A Concrete and The Morganti Group, Inc. (another defendant), related to a school construction project in the Bronx. J&A Concrete alleges that it was not fully paid for its work on the project, claiming a total of $2,002,303.51 is still owed to them.
J&A Concrete filed its complaint on June 30, 2025, asserting three causes of action: breach of contract against Morganti, quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services provided, and a claim for payment under a labor and payment bond issued by the other defendants. The bond was meant to protect those who performed work on the project, ensuring they would receive payment for their contributions.
The defendants argued that the venue chosen by J&A Concrete was improper. They pointed out that the subcontract with Morganti explicitly stated that any legal actions arising from the agreement must be filed in Albany County. J&A Concrete countered that the bond issued by Everest, Zurich, and Travelers required claims related to the bond to be filed in the county where the project occurred, which they argued justified the Bronx venue.
In his ruling, Judge Gomez sided with the defendants, stating, "the venue chosen by plaintiff with respect to the claims against Morganti is improper thereby forfeiting the right to retain the venue chosen." He emphasized that the subcontract's terms were clear and unambiguous, requiring that disputes be resolved in Albany County. The court noted that J&A Concrete's claims against Morganti fell under the subcontract's provisions, which mandated Albany as the venue.
The judge elaborated on the importance of adhering to contractual agreements regarding venue, stating, "when the parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms." This ruling reinforces the principle that parties in a contract can specify the forum for resolving disputes, and such clauses are generally upheld unless proven unreasonable.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case. It underscores the necessity for parties in contractual agreements, particularly in construction, to carefully consider and articulate the terms regarding venue. This decision may influence future contract negotiations and disputes, particularly in how parties approach venue selection in their agreements.
Moving forward, the change of venue to Albany County means that the case will now be heard in a different court, which could affect the proceedings and potentially the outcomes for the parties involved. The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases where venue disputes arise from contractual agreements.
As for what comes next, it is unclear if J&A Concrete plans to appeal the decision. The court filing did not indicate any pending related cases. However, the ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance with contractual terms and could lead to further scrutiny of venue provisions in future construction contracts.