Court Refuses To Read ‘Country’ As ‘County’ To Correct Alleged Typo In Payment Bond’s Venue Provision

Posted: May 27, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Ian Weiss / Categories Contract Interpretation, Court Rules/Procedures, Commercial

Court Refuses To Read ‘Country’ As ‘County’ To Correct Alleged Typo In Payment Bond’s Venue Provision

On May 7, 2026, in J&A Concrete Corp. v. Everest Reins. Co., Index No. 813988/25E, Justice Fidel E. Gomez granted defendants’ motion under CPLR 510 to change venue to Albany County. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the project’s payment bond required that suit be brought in Bronx County. The bond’s venue provision required that any suit be brought in the “State court [of] competent jurisdiction in and for the country or other political subdivision of the State in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, or in the United States District Court for the district in which the project, or any part thereof, is situated, and not elsewhere.” (Emphasis added). Plaintiff argued that ‘country’ was a typographical error and should be read as ‘county.’ The Court declined to do so. The Court explained:

[T]he bond does not require that this action be venued in Bronx County. To be sure, the express, clear, and unequivocal language in the bond only requires that an action arising therefrom be venued in the United States because the project took place in this ‘country’, and not, as urged, in the ‘county’ where the project took place. While plaintiff urges that the bond contains a typographical error in that ‘country’ should read ‘county,’ such that the venue chosen in - Bronx County - is proper, this Court is prevented from altering the express language in the bond. Again, courts should refrain from interpreting agreements in a manner which implies something not specifically included by the parties, and courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing. Thus, the clear, unequivocal, and express language in the bond only requires that this action be venued in a court within the United States and fails to mandate a specific location therein. (Citation omitted).

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP frequently litigate complex commercial disputes, including matters involving the interpretation and enforcement of contractual provisions. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.