Canstar v. J.A. Jones Construction Co.

212 A.D.2d 452, 622 N.Y.S.2d 730
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 452 (Canstar v. J.A. Jones Construction Co.) 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
Canstar v. J.A. Jones Construction Co., 212 A.D.2d 452, 622 N.Y.S.2d 730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which, inter alia, dismissed defendant and third-party plaintiff’s first counterclaim for breach of contract to the extent it sought damages in excess of $1,000 per day, dismissed its second counterclaim for fraudulent inducement/misrepresentation and dismissed its fifth counterclaim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[453]*453The parties’ contract unambiguously provides that the amount of damages available for delay is limited to $1,000 per day (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). Moreover, if any conflict arises, the parties specifically agreed that the provisions of the Prime Contract shall prevail, and that contract contains a liquidated damage clause to address any delay damages, as allegedly occurred here.

The second counterclaim sounding in fraud fails as it merely is an improper attempt to recast the breach of contract claim in terms of fraud (see, Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v Holborn Oil Co., 108 AD2d 607, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637). Indeed, there is no assertion that plaintiff allegedly breached any obligation collateral to or separate and apart from the obligations it had agreed to perform pursuant to the contract (supra).

Finally, the fifth counterclaim is redundant since a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract (see, Fasolino Foods Co. v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, 961 F2d 1052, 1056). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Ross, JJ.

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

Related

Davis v. Odn I Gmbh
S.D. New York, 2025
Lyons v. Sigma Mgt. Holdings, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51334(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Fuller Landau Advisory Servs. Inc. v. Gerber Fin. Inc.
333 F. Supp. 3d 307 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Violet Realty, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.
267 F. Supp. 3d 384 (W.D. New York, 2017)
Art Capital Group, LLC v. Carlyle Investment Management LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 5055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Fero v. Excellus Health Plain, Inc.
236 F. Supp. 3d 735 (W.D. New York, 2017)
Nungesser v. Columbia University
169 F. Supp. 3d 353 (S.D. New York, 2016)
Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East
49 Misc. 3d 1058 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Smile Train, Inc. v. Ferris Consulting Corp.
117 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Summit Health, Inc. v. APS Healthcare Bethesda, Inc.
993 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D. New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 452, 622 N.Y.S.2d 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canstar-v-ja-jones-construction-co-nyappdiv-1995.