Pronti v. Belletti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pronti v. Belletti

49 A.D.3d 1075, 853 N.Y.2d 692

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1075 (Pronti v. Belletti) 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

Pronti v. Belletti, 49 A.D.3d 1075, 853 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

This action stems from a contract between plaintiff and defendants Frederick M. Belletti and Roberta A. Belletti (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) in which plaintiff agreed “to arrange,” purportedly through an independent contractor, for the replacement of the roof on their residence. Plaintiff now sues for the balance due on the contract and the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien he filed. In response, defendants allege that the interior of their home suffered extensive water damage during the course of the work because the roof was improperly left uncovered during a rainstorm. In addition, they assert that the repair work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner requiring the hiring of another contractor to remedy it. As a result, they claim damages far in excess of the amount allegedly owed to plaintiff under the contract. The instant appeal arises from Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Numerous factual issues remain unresolved in the record, including inconsistencies in plaintiffs own motion papers. The contract between the parties recites that plaintiff would neither furnish nor install the materials for the job but that an independent contractor would be selected by plaintiff to do so. In contrast, plaintiffs mechanic’s lien avers that he performed the labor and furnished the materials for the job. As to plaintiff s argument that the contract bars defendants’ claims of interior [1076]*1076damage and defective workmanship because they were not timely made, such a provision does not bar challenges to the quality of the work when “those challenges are raised in the context of defending plaintiffs legal action for payment due under the contract” (United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Delmar Dev. Partners, LLC, 22 AD3d 1017, 1022 [2005]).

Plaintiffs remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Carpinello, J.

This action stems from a contract between plaintiff and defendants Frederick M. Belletti and Roberta A. Belletti (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) in which plaintiff agreed “to arrange,” purportedly through an independent contractor, for the replacement of the roof on their residence. Plaintiff now sues for the balance due on the contract and the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien he filed. In response, defendants allege that the interior of their home suffered extensive water damage during the course of the work because the roof was improperly left uncovered during a rainstorm. In addition, they assert that the repair work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner requiring the hiring of another contractor to remedy it. As a result, they claim damages far in excess of the amount allegedly owed to plaintiff under the contract. The instant appeal arises from Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Numerous factual issues remain unresolved in the record, including inconsistencies in plaintiffs own motion papers. The contract between the parties recites that plaintiff would neither furnish nor install the materials for the job but that an independent contractor would be selected by plaintiff to do so. In contrast, plaintiffs mechanic’s lien avers that he performed the labor and furnished the materials for the job. As to plaintiff s argument that the contract bars defendants’ claims of interior [1076]*1076damage and defective workmanship because they were not timely made, such a provision does not bar challenges to the quality of the work when “those challenges are raised in the context of defending plaintiffs legal action for payment due under the contract” (United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Delmar Dev. Partners, LLC, 22 AD3d 1017, 1022 [2005]).

Plaintiffs remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1075, 853 N.Y.2d 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pronti-v-belletti-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack