Tag:New York

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.
 

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York, 2008 WL 2796591 (N.Y. App. Div. July 22, 2008)

In this case, plaintiff contractor sued to recover the outstanding balance for work already completed on a construction project after the city cancelled the contract because of plaintiff’s attempted bribery of two city officials.  The Appellate Division, First Department, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that:  (i) “plaintiff agreed to conduct itself ethically…and consented to the imposition of penalties for violating the contractual prohibition against dispensing monetary inducements to City workers;” and (ii) the illegal conduct at issue was central to plaintiff’s performance under the contract.

The court rejected defendants’ alternative argument that the contract’s alternative dispute resolution clause required dismissal in favor of arbitration.  The court held that the narrow ADR provision only applied to specified disputes in accordance with the intent of the parties and could not be interpreted so as to render the language limiting its scope mere surplusage.

Otis Elevator Co. v. Hunt Constr. Group, Inc., 859 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In this case, plaintiff subcontractor sought damages resulting from an alleged breach by defendant general contractor for payments due under the subcontract.  Both parties moved for summary judgment.  Defendant argued that its receipt of payment from the owner was a condition precedent to its obligation to pay plaintiff, and that it was under no obligation to pay because it had not yet received payment from the owner.  The court rejected this argument, holding that “the pay-when-paid clause in the subcontract merely regulated the time of payment, and did not shift the risk of owner nonpayment to plaintiff.”  Because plaintiff submitted evidence establishing its entitlement to payment, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and defendant’s motion was denied.

McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 859 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In this case, plaintiff brought claims under Labor Law §240(1) for injuries sustained when the unsecured ladder he was standing on to drill holes in the ceiling tipped over and he fell to the floor.  The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability under the Labor Law and the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed.

The court held that, for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of liability under the statute, the plaintiff need only show that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping were absent; plaintiff is not required to show the ladder was defective.  Further, the owner and general contractor would still be liable even if the apprentice electrician working with plaintiff disobeyed an instruction to hold the ladder steady, as this is not the type of “safety device” contemplated by the statute.

Carroway Luxury Homes, LLC v. Integra Supply Corp., 859 N.Y.S.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In this case, plaintiff brought suit for construction delays and business expenses that arose after a forklift rented from defendant rolled over while being operated by plaintiff’s subcontractor.  Defendant answered asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims.  Plaintiff moved to strike defendant’s answer based on intentional spoliation of evidence, asserting that defendant had sold the forklift at issue before plaintiff had the opportunity to examine it.  The court denied plaintiff’s motion, holding that striking a pleading is a drastic sanction and that the record, at that time, was insufficient to determine whether the unavailability of the forklift for examination would deprive the plaintiff of the means to prove its case.

WTC Captive Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

After the World Trade Center disaster in September 2001, the City of New York created a captive insurance company, funded by a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to insure the costs of lawsuits arising from the WTC clean-up efforts.  Liberty Mutual was the primary insurer and had agreed to defend and indemnify the city against claims including, but not limited to, bodily and personal injury.  A group of secondary insurers agreed to provide the same coverage if the Liberty Mutual policy became exhausted.  All of the policies were retroactive to September 11, 2001. Read More

Geonie v. O.D. & P. N.Y., Ltd., 855 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

An injured worker, Geonie, filed a negligence suit against multiple defendants, including the general contractor, after stepping into an opening left by the removal of a tile from a raised floor in a computer room.  Geonie argued that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect against an elevation-related hazard and failed to adequately supervise the work area.  He further claimed that because the removed tile was discussed at weekly safety meetings, the defendants had, at least, constructive notice of the problem.  The trial court dismissed Geonie’s claims under New York Labor Law and his negligence claim against the general contractor. Read More

Hakimi v. Cantwell Landscaping & Design, Inc., 855 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Hakimi filed a breach of contract claim against Cantwell stemming from landscaping work performed on the property where Hakimi was having a new home built.  Cantwell admitted that it was not licensed as a home improvement contractor at the time it did the work.  In response to the lawsuit suit, Cantwell filed a mechanic’s lien and a notice of pendency against Hakimi’s property.  Cantwell claimed that it did not need a home improvement contractor’s license because Hakimi was building a new house and the administrative code exempted new home construction from the home improvement licensing requirements.  Hakimi moved to dismiss Cantwell’s counterclaims and the Supreme Court denied the motion. Read More