Lynch v. 99 Washington, LLC, 80 A.D.3d 977, 915 N.Y.S.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011)

In Lynch, the plaintiff injured his knee when stepping out of a trailer on a job site onto a free-standing stairwell that was allegedly misaligned with the trailer.  He sued under New York Labor Law and advanced common law negligence theories.  The Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on all claims, reasoning that because the plaintiff was not performing construction work when the injury occurred, recovery was not available under a statute providing a cause of action for work-related injuries.

Logan-Baldwin v. L.S.M. Gen. Contractors, Inc., 914 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

In this case, the homeowner plaintiffs sued the contractor, subcontractors, and their principals alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, arising out of a renovation project in their historic Rochester home.  A subcontractor moved for summary judgment, alleging lack of privity with the plaintiffs, who defended on the ground that the subcontractor failed to plead lack of privity in its answer, thereby waiving that defense.  The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, finding that privity is an essential element of a breach of contract claim and allowing the defendant to amend its answer to add the defense of privity.  The court emphasized that this was a matter of judicial discretion, and the defense appeared to have merit, the general rule being that an owner has no privity with a subcontractor.  Here, the court found no clear language to the contrary.
 

10 Ellicott Square Court Corp. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co., 2010 WL 5295420 (2d Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)

In this case, the plaintiffs were, respectively, the owner and construction manager of a commercial building project in Buffalo.  They contracted with a third firm for interior demolition in the building; the construction agreement required the demolition company to secure insurance to cover legal liability resulting from the demolition project.  The company secured a primary policy and an umbrella policy from the defendant, which issued a certificate of insurance naming the plaintiffs as additional insureds.  The primary policy specifically required the underlying construction agreement to be “executed” for any injury to be covered by the policy, but before the agreement was signed, a worker was injured and sued.  The defendant declined coverage, arguing that the construction agreement had not been executed in time.
 

Read More

Hayes v. Delaware-Chenango-Madisonotsego Board of Cooperative Educ. Servs., 79 A.D.3d 1405, 912 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In Hayes, the plaintiff was seriously injured while performing construction work at an educational agency site.  He filed a late notice of claim six months later, which the Supreme Court permitted.  The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed that discretion to accept a late notice rests with the trial court, finding no prejudice against the defendants from a “relatively brief” delay.
 

Chenango Sports, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N.A. #17, 2010 WL 5391541 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2010)

In this case, the plaintiff contractor was hired to install field turf outside a public school.  The two defendant labor unions argued that the parties had signed an agreement to use labor from their unions, but that the plaintiff then instead used labor from a carpenter’s union, claiming that the work could only be performed by a carpenter’s union (as a labor jurisdictional matter).  The dispute centered around whether the labor agreement included the two unions in question – it did not include their signatures – and whether the plaintiff had actually begun using their labor before hiring the carpenter’s union workers.  The defendant unions filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the underlying arbitration proceedings.  The District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the plaintiff’s motion, dismissing the arbitration claims on the grounds that the dispute was jurisdictional in nature and therefore outside the reach of the arbitration agreement.  After resolving this question, the only question of federal law implicated in the dispute, the court remanded to the New York Supreme Court for resolution of the factual disputes.

Exeter Building Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 79 A.D.3d 927, 913 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In this case, the plaintiff Exeter served as general contractor for a condominium development project.  The defendant insurance company Scottsdale issued several commercial general liability (CGL) policies that specifically excluded damage to property that arises out of faulty work.  The underlying action against Exeter alleged substantial defects in the work.  Scottsdale provided a law firm for Exeter’s defense but withdrew coverage on several claims when it learned of their nature.  Exeter then sued for a judgment ordering Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it.  The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court and granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment, finding that CGL policies like this one are not intended to indemnify contractors against claims that their work is defective.