Skanska Tunneling, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skanska Tunneling, Inc. v. City of New York

247 A.D.2d 344, 669 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1836

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 344 (Skanska Tunneling, Inc. 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.

Bluebook

Skanska Tunneling, Inc. v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 344, 669 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which, in an action seeking to recover increased costs under the changed conditions provisions of a municipal contract, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, inter alia, declared in defendant City’s favor that the dispute resolution procedures set forth in 9 RCNY 7-05, incorporated into the contract, are not illegal and that plaintiff contractor’s changed conditions claim is subject to such dispute resolution procedures, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dispute resolution procedures like those challenged herein, which vest authority to decide disputes such as claims of cost overruns in an employee or designee of the municipality, have been repeatedly held by the Court of Appeals not to be violative of any public policy concerning the fair adjudication of such disputes (e.g., NY City Charter § 311 [b] [7]), at least where, as here, the claim is raised after the fact by a contractor who has retained the benefit of the rest of the contract, and provided there is, as here, some independent review mechanism sufficient to satisfy minimum review standards such as those under CPLR articles 75 or 78 (see, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 82 NY2d 47; Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 87 NY2d 927; Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341). Furthermore, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, the dispute herein, which involves a claim of unanticipated subsurface conditions and a consequent need for extra work, is [345]*345within the scope of 9 RCNY 7-05 (a).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which, in an action seeking to recover increased costs under the changed conditions provisions of a municipal contract, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, inter alia, declared in defendant City’s favor that the dispute resolution procedures set forth in 9 RCNY 7-05, incorporated into the contract, are not illegal and that plaintiff contractor’s changed conditions claim is subject to such dispute resolution procedures, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dispute resolution procedures like those challenged herein, which vest authority to decide disputes such as claims of cost overruns in an employee or designee of the municipality, have been repeatedly held by the Court of Appeals not to be violative of any public policy concerning the fair adjudication of such disputes (e.g., NY City Charter § 311 [b] [7]), at least where, as here, the claim is raised after the fact by a contractor who has retained the benefit of the rest of the contract, and provided there is, as here, some independent review mechanism sufficient to satisfy minimum review standards such as those under CPLR articles 75 or 78 (see, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 82 NY2d 47; Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 87 NY2d 927; Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341). Furthermore, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, the dispute herein, which involves a claim of unanticipated subsurface conditions and a consequent need for extra work, is [345]*345within the scope of 9 RCNY 7-05 (a).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 344, 669 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skanska-tunneling-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack