Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority

99 A.D.3d 479, 951 N.Y.2d 671

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 9, 2012·Published

Opinion

Plaintiff failed to provide timely written notice of its intention to make a claim for damages arising out of defendant’s delay, a condition precedent to commencing an action pursuant to section 23 of the parties’ contract (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20, 30-31 [1998]; 4-A Gen. Contr. Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 28 AD3d 261 [1st Dept 2006]). Plaintiffs July 26, 2004 letter which was allegedly [480] sent to defendant, does not satisfy the requirement of written notice. The letter was not designated as a notice of claim, gave no indication of an intent to make a claim, and was sent long before the March 2006 accrual of plaintiffs claim rather than within 20 days of the date the claim arose (see Bat-Jac Contr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 1 AD3d 128 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.R, Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Plaintiff failed to provide timely written notice of its intention to make a claim for damages arising out of defendant’s delay, a condition precedent to commencing an action pursuant to section 23 of the parties’ contract (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20, 30-31 [1998]; 4-A Gen. Contr. Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 28 AD3d 261 [1st Dept 2006]). Plaintiffs July 26, 2004 letter which was allegedly [480] sent to defendant, does not satisfy the requirement of written notice. The letter was not designated as a notice of claim, gave no indication of an intent to make a claim, and was sent long before the March 2006 accrual of plaintiffs claim rather than within 20 days of the date the claim arose (see Bat-Jac Contr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 1 AD3d 128 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.R, Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority, 99 A.D.3d 479, 951 N.Y.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

99 A.D.3d 479 (Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related