American Curtainwall, Inc. v. NTD Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Curtainwall, Inc. v. NTD Construction Corp.

83 A.D.3d 597, 921 N.Y.S.2d 250

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 597 (American Curtainwall, Inc. v. NTD Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Curtainwall, Inc. v. NTD Construction Corp., 83 A.D.3d 597, 921 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[598]*598Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2010, which, inter alia, granted defendants NTD Construction Corp.’s and MUS23, LLC’s motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.'

The documentary evidence annexed to the complaint contradicts the allegations in the complaint underlying the second cause of action, which alleges breach of contract (see Wilson v Hochberg, 245 AD2d 116 [1997]). Defendant NTD was justified in terminating its contracts with plaintiff based on plaintiffs failure to pay its subcontractor, defendant Midwest Curtainwall. By refusing to pay Midwest after NTD offered to reverse the termination of the contracts if it did, plaintiff effectively waived the 15-day cure period by. demonstrating that it would have similarly rejected a written notice to cure.

The third cause of action, which seeks recovery in quantum meruit, is precluded by the valid and enforceable written contracts governing the subject matter in dispute (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[598]*598Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2010, which, inter alia, granted defendants NTD Construction Corp.’s and MUS23, LLC’s motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.'

The documentary evidence annexed to the complaint contradicts the allegations in the complaint underlying the second cause of action, which alleges breach of contract (see Wilson v Hochberg, 245 AD2d 116 [1997]). Defendant NTD was justified in terminating its contracts with plaintiff based on plaintiffs failure to pay its subcontractor, defendant Midwest Curtainwall. By refusing to pay Midwest after NTD offered to reverse the termination of the contracts if it did, plaintiff effectively waived the 15-day cure period by. demonstrating that it would have similarly rejected a written notice to cure.

The third cause of action, which seeks recovery in quantum meruit, is precluded by the valid and enforceable written contracts governing the subject matter in dispute (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 597, 921 N.Y.S.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-curtainwall-inc-v-ntd-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack