Raven seeks recovery on two claims against the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) for work performed between 1986 and 1988. Its claim for work it performed as a subcontractor on a project at 1580 Amsterdam Avenue was properly dismissed, since a subcontractor does not have standing to assert claims for breach of contract in lieu of the general contractor, in the absence of an assignment (see, E. States Elec. Contr., Inc. v. William L. Crow Constr. Corp., 153 A.D.2d 522), and Raven, its contention to the contrary notwithstanding, was not the general contractor for the project.
The motion court also properly exercised its discretion in denying Raven leave to amend its complaint to assert causes of action for an account stated, unjust enrichment, and to recover as a third-party beneficiary, since such claims were plainly without merit. The contract between Raven and the construction manager, Ambrose Associates, as well as the terms contained within the bid documents, made clear that subcontractors, such as Raven, would not have any recourse against the City.
With regard to those claims relating to projects for which Raven was the general contractor, Raven's communication to the City, identifying only the amount claimed, was so wanting in detail as to fail to constitute a notice of claim within the meaning of New York City Administrative Code § 7-201(a), and since such notice is a condition of maintaining an action against the City, the subject claims were properly dismissed.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.