Adam D. Sokoloff, Appellants v. Harriman Estates Development Corp., Respondent, Defendant

Summary

The Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for specific performance of the March 12, 1998 contract with Harriman and that the third‑party‑beneficiary clause in Harriman’s contract with Ercolino does not bar the claim; moreover, Harriman cannot rely on that contract to withhold the architectural plans because, as the plaintiffs' agent, it owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty.