Hammer & Steele, Inc. v. Environmental Mgt. Consultants, Inc.

Hammer & Steele, Inc. v Environmental Mgt. Consultants, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05853 October 8, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Hammer & Steele, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v Environmental Management Consultants, Inc. et al., Defendants-Respondents, The J. Pilla Group, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents, John Doe, et al., Defendants. Decided and Entered: October 08, 2026 Index No. 804286/23|Appeal No. 7187|Case No. 2025-07215| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, JJ. Cozen O' Connor, New York (Amanda L. Nelson of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Ehrlich, Petriello, Gudin, Plaza & Reed P.C., New York (John J. Petriello of counsel), for respondent-appellant. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 6, 2025, which granted plaintiff Hammer & Steel, Inc.'s motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 for leave to renew its opposition to defendants Environmental Management Consultants, Inc., Thomas Rankin, and Robert Bennett's (collectively, the EMC Defendants) motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety or to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered July 16, 2024, granting the motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and, upon renewal, reinstated the complaint as against defendants J.Pilla Group, Ltd. and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, and otherwise denied the motion to the extent it sought to have the complaint reinstated as against the EMC Defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion for leave to renew the July 16, 2024 order dismissing the complaint as against J. Pilla Group and Philadelphia Indemnity, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff, a Missouri corporation, rented construction equipment to Environmental Management Consultants (EMC) pursuant to a rental agreement for a construction project located in the Bronx. The rental agreement contains a forum selection clause naming Missouri as the forum of choice. Defendant J. Pilla Group was the general subcontractor for the project and not a party to the rental agreement. EMC failed to pay rental charges and plaintiff thereafter filed a mechanic's lien against the Bronx project. J. Pilla Group posted a lien discharge bond with Philadelphia Indemnity as surety. Plaintiff has been seeking payment under the rental agreement ever since, commencing various actions in both New York and Missouri. In July 2024, the motion court dismissed the complaint in this action in its entirety based on the forum-selection clause in the rental agreement between plaintiff and EMC, including the claims against Philadelphia Indemnity, J. Pilla Group, and EMC's principals Thomas Rankin and Robert Bennett. Plaintiff did not appeal or seek reargument of the July 2024 order. Instead, it brought claims against the same defendants in Missouri, the venue chosen in the forum-selection clause in the rental agreement. In March 2025, the Missouri court granted the motion to dismiss brought by J.Pilla Group and Philadelphia Indemnity, finding it had no personal jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff then moved in New York Supreme Court for leave to renew its opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint and to vacate the July 2024 order, seeking reinstatement of the complaint in its entirety. The court granted renewal and reinstated the complaint as against J.Pilla and Philadelphia Indemnity but declined to reinstate the complaint as against the EMC Defendants. [*2] The court's grant of the motion for leave to renew was an improvident exercise of discretion because plaintiff's motion was not based upon new facts not previously considered by the court or a change in the law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221[e][2]; see Tavarez v Ronad Holding Corp., 202 AD3d 423, 423-424 [1st Dept 2022]). The Missouri ruling dismissing that case as against J. Pilla Group and Philadelphia Indemnity simply applied long-settled jurisdictional principles of law (see e.g. Punter v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 191 AD3d 563, 563 [1st Dept 2021]; Cives Corp. v Hunt Constr. Group, Inc., 91 AD3d 1178, 1180 [3d Dept 2012]). The court's implicit denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to renew its opposition to the EMC Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was proper because that portion of the motion was also not based on any new facts or a change in the law that could provide a basis for renewal and vacatur of the dismissal of the complaint as against them. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 8, 2026