Fourteen Hills Building Corp. v. Usi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fourteen Hills Building Corp. v. Usi

43 A.D.3d 859, 841 N.Y.S.2d 676

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 859 (Fourteen Hills Building Corp. v. Usi) 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

Fourteen Hills Building Corp. v. Usi, 43 A.D.3d 859, 841 N.Y.S.2d 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[860]*860In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, and a related action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, which were jointly tried, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 6, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff on the counterclaims alleging breach of contract in the principal sum of $122,720 and, inter alia, in effect, dismissed the complaints in both actions.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to a clause in the subject construction contract, the defendants had the absolute right to cancel the contract in the event that the building permit was denied as a result of over clearing or height restrictions. There was unrefuted evidence that the building permit for the subject property was denied due to overclearing of the property by the plaintiff during the construction of the house. Based upon this unrefuted evidence, the defendants were entitled to cancel the contract, and the court properly, in effect, dismissed the complaints and awarded the defendants the principal sum of $122,720 on their counterclaims alleging breach of contract (see Arons v Charpentier, 36 AD3d 636 [2007]; United Consol. Indus, v Mendel’s Auto Parts, 150 AD2d 768 [1989]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ, Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ, concur.

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

[860]*860In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, and a related action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, which were jointly tried, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 6, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff on the counterclaims alleging breach of contract in the principal sum of $122,720 and, inter alia, in effect, dismissed the complaints in both actions.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to a clause in the subject construction contract, the defendants had the absolute right to cancel the contract in the event that the building permit was denied as a result of over clearing or height restrictions. There was unrefuted evidence that the building permit for the subject property was denied due to overclearing of the property by the plaintiff during the construction of the house. Based upon this unrefuted evidence, the defendants were entitled to cancel the contract, and the court properly, in effect, dismissed the complaints and awarded the defendants the principal sum of $122,720 on their counterclaims alleging breach of contract (see Arons v Charpentier, 36 AD3d 636 [2007]; United Consol. Indus, v Mendel’s Auto Parts, 150 AD2d 768 [1989]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ, Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 859, 841 N.Y.S.2d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fourteen-hills-building-corp-v-usi-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack