Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v. New York City Housing Authority

138 A.D.3d 423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862

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

DecidedApril 5, 2016

Docket729 653507/13

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 423 (Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. 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

Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v. New York City Housing Authority, 138 A.D.3d 423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the second and fourth causes of action insofar as they sought payment for extra maintenance work and in quantum meruit, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The contractual notice of claim requirement in section 23 of the contract’s General Conditions is an express condition precedent to recovery and provides that claims are waived by the contractor’s failure to submit a sufficient notice (see Hi-Tech Constr. & Mgt. Servs. Inc. v Housing Auth. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 908 [2015]; Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 306 AD2d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 628 [2003]). Plaintiff’s notices of claim seeking payment for “maintenance costs (Done under protest)” were insufficient as notices that the basis of plaintiff’s claim was to recover for the removal of garbage thrown by the tenants onto plaintiff’s sheds. Furthermore, to allow the same claim to be pleaded in quantum meruit would undermine the notice of claim requirement.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the second and fourth causes of action insofar as they sought payment for extra maintenance work and in quantum meruit, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The contractual notice of claim requirement in section 23 of the contract’s General Conditions is an express condition precedent to recovery and provides that claims are waived by the contractor’s failure to submit a sufficient notice (see Hi-Tech Constr. & Mgt. Servs. Inc. v Housing Auth. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 908 [2015]; Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 306 AD2d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 628 [2003]). Plaintiff’s notices of claim seeking payment for “maintenance costs (Done under protest)” were insufficient as notices that the basis of plaintiff’s claim was to recover for the removal of garbage thrown by the tenants onto plaintiff’s sheds. Furthermore, to allow the same claim to be pleaded in quantum meruit would undermine the notice of claim requirement.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-bridge-scaffolds-corp-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack