Richardson v. CE Solutions Group, LLC

── Richardson v. CE Solutions Group, LLC ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Richardson v CE Solutions Group, LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 03254 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Richardson v CE Solutions Group, LLC</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03254</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Marques Richardson et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,</p> <p>v</p> <p>CE Solutions Group, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants, Marvelous Mark Transportation Co., Inc. et al, Defendants.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 21, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 653369/21|Appeal No. 6691|Case No. 2025-03018|</p> <p>Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Evan J. Spelfogel of counsel) for appellants.</p> <p>Pelton Graham LLC, New York (Taylor B. Graham of counsel), for respondents.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered April 24, 2025, which granted plaintiffs' motion to renew, and upon renewal, denied the motion of defendants CE Solutions Group, LLC and Eduard Slinin (collectively, the CE defendants) to dismiss the class action complaint's cause of action for breach of contract (seventh cause of action), unanimously affirmed, with costs.</p> <p>Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion to renew the CE defendants' motion to dismiss, and, upon renewal, properly denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action. In their putative class action, plaintiffs, construction and traffic control flaggers, asserted that they were third-party beneficiaries of agreements between CE Solutions Group and defendant Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants breached the governing agreements by failing to pay them prevailing wages, overtime, and supplemental benefits under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-142 for their work at Con Edison worksites. By order dated October 11, 2024, Supreme Court dismissed the breach of contract cause of action, finding that the agreements expressly disclaimed third-party beneficiary status to any party not specified in the agreements, and that plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries not referred to in the agreements, therefore could not recover for breach of contract.</p> <p>However, after Supreme Court issued its October 11, 2024 order, this Court decided <i>Santana v San Mateo Constr. Corp</i>. (234 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2025]), holding that disclaimers of third-party beneficiary rights in a flagging contract, such as the one presented here, were void as against public policy (<i>id. </i>at 562-563). This Court's holding in <i>Santana</i> constituted a change in the law directly relevant to the CE defendants' grounds for seeking dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action, and had <i>Santana</i> been decided before Supreme Court's October 2024 decision, it would have altered the court's determination (CPLR 2221[e]). Further, den