Catagory:Case Summaries

DeFilippo v. Knolls of Melville Redev. Co., No. 00-21112, 2010 WL 4904665 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. Nov. 30, 2010)

In DeFilippo v. Knolls of Melville Redevelopment Co., a subcontractor employed the plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working.  Plaintiff originally brought suit against four defendants but lost at summary judgment.  Plaintiff then sought to amend his complaint to add a new defendant, Arlen Contracting Corp. Arlen argued that plaintiff’s claims against it were time barred by the three-year statute of limitations.  Plaintiff alleged that the claims should go forward because the lower court properly held that his claims were exempted from the statute of limitations.  The court disagreed and found that because Arlen did not have an opportunity to oppose plaintiff’s argument, as it was not a party to the lower court’s decision, Arlen would be given a chance to litigate the issue.

Metro Found. Contractors, Inc. v. Marco Martelli Assocs., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 594, 912 N.Y.S.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In Metro Foundation Contractors, the Appellate Division, First Department, denied the plaintiff subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment, finding that fact issues remained as to whether the plaintiff defaulted under the subcontract and as to whether defendant general contractor’s payments to the plaintiff and to vendors were proper.  The court did hold that the defendant did not violate New York’s lien law in paying trust funds to the plaintiff and vendors, who were the proper beneficiaries.

Safeco Ins. Co. v. M.E.S., Inc., No. 09-cv-3312, 2010 WL 4828103 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2010)

In Safeco Ins. Co. v. M.E.S., Inc., the court decided which parameters should be considered when determining the amount of collateral to which an insurer of construction projects is entitled.  In this case, defendant construction companies executed indemnity agreements with plaintiff insurer.   Plaintiff sued to secure collateral under the indemnity agreements, arguing that it was entitled to several million dollars from each defendant as collateral security.  Defendants argued that the amounts should be reduced for several reasons, including (i) the fact that the insurer failed to revise its costs estimate to reflect the actual amounts of the subcontract awarded, and (ii) the insurer had several accounts receivable whose proceeds should be used to cover insurer’s costs.  The court agreed with the defendants on the first argument but not the second; the court determined the appropriate amount of collateral not by seeking mathematical certainty, but by applying New York’s reasonableness standard to construe the facts and the documentation submitted by the parties.

Mount Vernon City School Dist. v. Nova Cas. Co., 78 A.D.3d 1028, 912 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 23, 2010)

In Mount Vernon City School District, the plaintiff school district contracted with the defendant to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work at a middle school.  The defendant secured a performance bond from the defendant surety.  Ultimately, the contractor failed to complete the work, and the surety refused to perform under the bond.  The district sued both the surety and the contractor for breach of contract.  The contractor had requested that payment be sent to the state Department of Labor, to be applied to a claim in another school district, and the surety argued that it should succeed to the contractor’s rights under its contract.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, disagreed, holding that the surety was not a fully paying and performing party, and that therefore it did not succeed to the rights of the payment beneficiaries.  Furthermore, the court held that the district did not breach the payment terms of the performance bond by paying the money over to the Department of Labor on request.  Finally, the court found that the school district was not entitled to attorney’s fees, since nothing in the parties’ agreements provided for such fees.

Remodeling Constr. Serv. v. Minter, 78 A.D.3d 1677, 913 N.Y.S.2d 446 (NY App. Div. 4th Dep’t Nov. 19, 2010)

In Remodeling Constr. Serv. v. Minter, a construction company was denied further payment where it demanded more payment than it was contractually owed.  Defendant hired plaintiff construction company to rebuild defendant’s house.  The parties agreed in writing that payment would be meted out according to a payment schedule.  According to the schedule, the drywall installation was a prerequisite to the fifth payment.  After completing all the work necessary to receive the first four payments, and having received the first four payments, plaintiff then refused to install the drywall.  Plaintiff refused to continue unless defendant paid plaintiff additional sums.  Defendant refused and plaintiff brought suit for breach of contract.  The court found that according to the contract, plaintiff was entitled only to the first four payments.  The court held that plaintiff breached the contract by refusing to perform and wrongfully demanding the fifth payment.  Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.