Mazzaroli v. G. H. Cook Builders, Inc.

188 A.D.2d 782, 591 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13791
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 782 (Mazzaroli v. G. H. Cook Builders, Inc.) 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
Mazzaroli v. G. H. Cook Builders, Inc., 188 A.D.2d 782, 591 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered December 19, 1991 in Greene County, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract on October 14, 1987 requiring defendant, a building contractor, to construct a shell of a house for plaintiff in the Town of East Jewett, Greene County. The pertinent provisions of the contract sub judice are:

"This project shall be done in phases with each phase governed by separate and distinct contracts. This Proposal and Contract shall govern the following stages of what shall be considered Phase I:
"1. Excavation of foundation: including placement of drainage pipes around foundation, placement creek-run gravel within [sic] the area of the foundation footings as well as around the perimeter of the foundation, and the backfilling and final grading of the foundation.
"2. The construction of footings and foundation as specified in the following Agreement under Specifications.
"3. Framing of structure.
"4. Installation of windows and exterior doors.
"5. Application of air infiltration barrier and siding on exterior walls, along with underlayment, drip-edge and shingles on the roof.”

The contract further provided that all work was to be performed in accordance with the plans designed by the architect, Fred Calabrese, that any changes, alterations or modifications were to be in writing and signed by the parties, and that plaintiff was to pay defendant $60,000 for the Phase I work. Plaintiff actually paid defendant $65,520 for the Phase I construction. The additional $5,520 was for siding costs.

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract alleging substandard work and failings in the Phase I construction of the house. Defendant counterclaimed in its answer for damages and lost profits. Supreme Court rendered a decision, after a nonjury trial of the issues, finding that plaintiff had failed to establish that the house was improperly constructed and that the total amount of money paid to date by plaintiff did not [783]*783reflect any profit for Phase I work on the house.

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

Related

Silverman v. Mergentime Corp.
252 A.D.2d 925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.D.2d 782, 591 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzaroli-v-g-h-cook-builders-inc-nyappdiv-1992.