TADCO Constr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

TADCO Constr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.

139 A.D.3d 471, 29 N.Y.S.3d 798

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

DecidedMay 10, 2016

Docket1117A 600040/07 1117

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 471 (TADCO Constr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.) 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

TADCO Constr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 139 A.D.3d 471, 29 N.Y.S.3d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered June 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second, third, fifth, eighth, and tenth through thirteenth causes of action in the complaint, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the second, third, fifth, and eighth causes of action, and awarded plaintiff summary judgment in amounts less than the amounts requested on its fourth and sixth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 9, 2013, which, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to comply with any of the conditions precedent to recovering its claims for additional compensation for change orders and extra work (A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20 [1998]).

The quasi contract claims were correctly dismissed as precluded by the existence of a valid and enforceable contract (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]), and the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was correctly dismissed, given the lack of any evidence of bad faith.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick 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 (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered June 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second, third, fifth, eighth, and tenth through thirteenth causes of action in the complaint, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the second, third, fifth, and eighth causes of action, and awarded plaintiff summary judgment in amounts less than the amounts requested on its fourth and sixth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 9, 2013, which, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to comply with any of the conditions precedent to recovering its claims for additional compensation for change orders and extra work (A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20 [1998]).

The quasi contract claims were correctly dismissed as precluded by the existence of a valid and enforceable contract (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]), and the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was correctly dismissed, given the lack of any evidence of bad faith.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 471, 29 N.Y.S.3d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tadco-constr-corp-v-dormitory-auth-of-the-state-of-ny-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack