Precast Restoration Services, LLC v. Global Precast, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Precast Restoration Services, LLC v. Global Precast, Inc.

131 A.D.3d 873, 17 N.Y.S.3d 393

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15168 104029/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 873 (Precast Restoration Services, LLC v. Global Precast, 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

Precast Restoration Services, LLC v. Global Precast, Inc., 131 A.D.3d 873, 17 N.Y.S.3d 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 22, 2014, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its Prompt Payment Act cause of action against defendant Global Precast, Inc., awarded plaintiff damages, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and severed the action as to defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the award and severance vacated.

In this action alleging, among other things, defendant’s violation of the Prompt Payment Act (General Business Law § 756 et seg.), defendant did not waive its affirmative defenses by failing to disapprove plaintiff’s invoices (see Donninger Constr., Inc. v C.W. Brown, Inc., 113 AD3d 724, 725 [2d Dept 2014]). Because plaintiff failed to establish an absence of material issues of fact as to the merits of those defenses, its motion should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of defendant’s proof in opposition to the motion (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]).

Even if plaintiff had met its burden, defendant submitted *874 admissible evidence raising material issues of fact (see Metro Found. Contrs., Inc. v Marco Martelli Assoc., Inc., 78 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2010]), including whether the two oral agreements at issue provided for certain billing cycles that superseded the provisions of the Act (see General Business Law § 756-a [1]), and whether plaintiff improperly billed defendant on a time- and-materials basis in violation of alleged provisions of the agreements requiring price-per-square-foot billing (see § 756-a [2] [a] [ii] [4]). Further, an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff failed to submit “contractually required documentation” with the invoices, thereby excusing defendant of its obligation to approve or disapprove the invoices within 12 business days (§ 756-a [2] [a] [ii]; see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 22, 2014, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its Prompt Payment Act cause of action against defendant Global Precast, Inc., awarded plaintiff damages, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and severed the action as to defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the award and severance vacated.

In this action alleging, among other things, defendant’s violation of the Prompt Payment Act (General Business Law § 756 et seg.), defendant did not waive its affirmative defenses by failing to disapprove plaintiff’s invoices (see Donninger Constr., Inc. v C.W. Brown, Inc., 113 AD3d 724, 725 [2d Dept 2014]). Because plaintiff failed to establish an absence of material issues of fact as to the merits of those defenses, its motion should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of defendant’s proof in opposition to the motion (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]).

Even if plaintiff had met its burden, defendant submitted *874 admissible evidence raising material issues of fact (see Metro Found. Contrs., Inc. v Marco Martelli Assoc., Inc., 78 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2010]), including whether the two oral agreements at issue provided for certain billing cycles that superseded the provisions of the Act (see General Business Law § 756-a [1]), and whether plaintiff improperly billed defendant on a time- and-materials basis in violation of alleged provisions of the agreements requiring price-per-square-foot billing (see § 756-a [2] [a] [ii] [4]). Further, an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff failed to submit “contractually required documentation” with the invoices, thereby excusing defendant of its obligation to approve or disapprove the invoices within 12 business days (§ 756-a [2] [a] [ii]; see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 873, 17 N.Y.S.3d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/precast-restoration-services-llc-v-global-precast-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack