The Americas – Page 25 – Construction Law

Fourth Department Rules on Labor Law Claims

Nov 30 2007

Mulcaire v. Buffalo Structural Steel Constr. Corp., 846 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In this case, a construction worker and a family member alleged Labor Law and common law negligence causes of action for injuries plaintiff sustained while installing floor decking in a building undergoing construction. Plaintiff slipped and fell through an uncovered opening approximately 18 feet to the floor. The trial court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants appealed.

Statute of Limitations Begins to Run When Subcontractor Completes All Work on Subcontract, Including Change Orders

Nov 28 2007

N.B. Kenney Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 876 N.E.2d 1175 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)

In this case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that for the purposes of the statute of limitations, a subcontractor’s time to file suit begins to run at the completion of all work on a particular subcontract, including any change orders thereto.

The defendant insurance company in this case moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff completed the change order giving rise to the complaint more than one year prior to filing suit and that the suit was therefor time-barred. The court rejected this argument, holding that the subcontractor’s work on other change orders pursuant to the same subcontract tolled the limitations period until all work on the subcontract was complete. The court noted that continued work for the same owner or on the same location, but under a new and independent subcontract would not have tolled the limitations period.

Jury to Decide Whether Falling Debris was Foreseeable at Construction Site

Nov 27 2007

Amerson v. Melito Constr. Corp., 845 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In this case, the Second Department reversed a finding of summary judgment concerning an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241(6). Plaintiff, a masonry subcontractor, was injured while performing his duties at the construction site when a concrete block fell on his head. At the time he was injured, plaintiff was wearing a hard hart and had various pieces of equipment, including a chipping hammer, scraper, shovel and wheelbarrow, in his possession as needed to perform his work. Read More

General Contractor Not Entitled to Damages for Performing Subcontractor’s Work, Where General Contractor Failed to Give Required Notice to Subcontractor

Nov 22 2007

Rockwell Roofing, Inc. v. Jan Five Corp., 2007 WL 4248144 (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2007)

The Superior Court ruled on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on both its claim and defendant’s counterclaim. The court allowed summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Plaintiff subcontractor filed the action against defendant general contractor and its payment bond surety. The defendant general contractor filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The subcontractor moved for summary judgment on the general contractor’s counterclaim, arguing that the general contractor failed to provide notice as required by the contract prior to performing work on the contract that was the responsibility of the subcontractor. Summary judgment was granted, dismissing this portion of the general contractor’s counterclaim.
Read More

Subcontractor Liability For Injuries Caused By Subcontractor’s Equipment

Nov 21 2007

Saccenti v. City of New York, 846 N.Y.S.2d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In this action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common law negligence, the Second Department examined the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims to defendant Hallen Construction, a subcontractor hired by a third-party defendant. The claims involved injuries plaintiff sustained when he tripped over a spike Hallen had installed at the construction site in order to affix steel plates covering the trench it was excavating.
Read More

Default Judgment Overturned Due to Law Firm Error

Nov 20 2007

Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc. v. Imperial Dev. & Constr. Corp., 845 N.Y.S.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In this case, the appellate court reversed a default judgment entered against defendant New York City School Construction Authority (“SCA”). Plaintiff had claimed that Imperial Development & Construction Corp., the general contractor, owed over $253,000 to it as the sub-contractor for plumbing work on the project. Imperial disputed the claim. Pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1735(6), plaintiff notified SCA, as the owner of the property where the disputed work took place, of its dispute with Imperial. Also pursuant to that law, SCA was required to withhold the disputed amount of money from any payments it made to Imperial pursuant to the construction contract. After plaintiff filed a note of issue, SCA disclosed that it had failed to withhold any money on plaintiff’s behalf. Consequently, plaintiff moved to preclude SCA from introducing evidence regarding setoffs and back-charges with respect to its contract with Imperial on the basis that SCA had failed to respond to interrogatories seeking such information. The Supreme Court granted this motion upon SCA’s default. Read More

Third Party Defendant’s Summary Judgment Appeals Go Unheard

Nov 14 2007

D’Angelo v. Builders Group, 845 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

This case involved an alleged violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and contractual indemnification. Specifically, this decision involved an appeal brought by third-party plaintiff Builders Group from the lower court’s denial of its summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the complaint and its cross-motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from third-party defendant Caruso Painting and Decorating Corp. Read More

Court Awards Liquidated Damages and Specific Performance in Breach of Construction Contract Case

Nov 05 2007

Granite Broadway Dev. LLC v. 1711 LLC, 845 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In this case, a contractor sued a property owner for breach of a construction contract. After a bench trial, the court awarded the owner liquidated damages, certain offset damages, and specific performance. The contractor appealed.

Statute of Repose Bars Negligence Claims After Passage of Six Years

Nov 01 2007

Cusolito v. Care Free Homes, Inc., Civ. No. 05-00443, 2007 WL 5578208 (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2007)

On motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court held that the statute of repose barred all negligence-based claims filed by a homeowner against the defendant contractor who installed vinyl siding and the contractor’s president, and also barred the contractor’s third-party claims against a roofing contractor for contribution. The court allowed the action to go forward on a claim by the homeowners premised on an express ten-year warranty by the vinyl-siding contractor.

Excessive Withholding Prompts Award of Interest, Attorney’s Fees and Penalties under Pennsylvania’s Prompt Payment Act

Oct 30 2007

Imperial Excavating and Paving, LLC v. Rizzetto Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 935 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)

Pennsylvania’s Prompt Payment Act (the “PPPA”) is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors by providing guidelines for prompt payment on construction projects. Under the PPPA, every subcontractor working on a project subject to the PPPA is entitled to payment, according to the proportion of the subcontract completed, within 14 days of the date when the contractor receives a progress payment on the project. 73 PA.STAT. §507(c). The contractor is, however, entitled to withhold such payment if it has a good faith claim for deficient performance. 73 PA.STAT. §511. If a contractor unreasonably withholds payment to the subcontractor, the contractor can be assessed interest on the payment (73 PA.STAT. §509) plus a penalty of 1percent per month of the amount that was wrongfully withheld. 73 PA.STAT. §512. The amount a contractor may withhold is proper if it “bears a reasonable relation to the value of any claim held in good faith.” See Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

The Imperial Excavating case involved the construction of two soccer fields located at a high school. The grading subcontractor completed its work on the project and submitted an application for payment to the contractor. The contractor submitted its own application for payment to the owner for the subcontractor’s work, certifying that the sub’s work was completed in accordance with the contract documents. The owner paid the contractor’s application less retainage, and the contractor paid the subcontractor. Read More

Catagory:The Americas