Rockmore Contr. Corp. v. City of New York
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03262 (Rockmore Contr. Corp. v. City of New York) 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.
Opinion
| Rockmore Contr. Corp. v City of New York |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03262 |
| Decided on May 29, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: May 29, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Kapnick, Gesmer, Shulman, JJ.
Index No. 652483/22|Appeal No. 4482|Case No. 2024-05664|
v
The City of New York, Defendant-Respondent.
Cullen and Dykman LLP, Uniondale (Jean-Pierre D. Van Lent of counsel), for appellant.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Drucker of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about September 5, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for delay damages related to extended field office costs, extended site overhead, and weather, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claims for extended field office costs and extended site overhead because its expert improperly used the bid amount in calculating those claims (see Five Star Elec. Corp. v A.J. Pegno Constr. Co., Inc./Tully Constr. Co., Inc., 209 AD3d 464, 464 [1st Dept 2022]). "It is well established that prebid estimates made by the contractor to compute a bid price are not a valid basis for computing recovery" (Najjar Indus. v City of New York, 87 AD2d 329, 332 [1st Dept 1982], affd 68 NY2d 943 [1986]).
The court also properly dismissed plaintiff's weather delay damages claim, which was excluded by the parties' construction contract and was not solely caused by defendant (see Henick-Lane, Inc. v 616 First Ave. LLC, 214 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2023]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 29, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 03262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockmore-contr-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2025.