Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

79 A.D.3d 607, 912 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 607 (Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority, 79 A.D.3d 607, 912 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered April 8, 2009, which granted defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the subject contract, as a condition precedent to suit, plaintiff was required to file a written notice of claim for extra costs or damages within 20 days after said claim arose and to comply with any demands for additional information. Plaintiff argues that NYCHA, by its affirmations and representations, induced it into believing that it did not need to file a notice of claim. Even assuming that plaintiff’s estoppel argument has merit, the failure to comply with NYCHA’s request for additional information in a letter dated May 21, 2007 is itself sufficient to require dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff does not and cannot contend that it was induced into believing it need not comply with the request and, as noted above, compliance with requests for additional information is a precondition to suit.

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Nardelli, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered April 8, 2009, which granted defendant New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the subject contract, as a condition precedent to suit, plaintiff was required to file a written notice of claim for extra costs or damages within 20 days after said claim arose and to comply with any demands for additional information. Plaintiff argues that NYCHA, by its affirmations and representations, induced it into believing that it did not need to file a notice of claim. Even assuming that plaintiff’s estoppel argument has merit, the failure to comply with NYCHA’s request for additional information in a letter dated May 21, 2007 is itself sufficient to require dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff does not and cannot contend that it was induced into believing it need not comply with the request and, as noted above, compliance with requests for additional information is a precondition to suit.

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Nardelli, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 607, 912 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kel-tech-construction-inc-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2010.