Teddy Giannopulos General Contractors, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teddy Giannopulos General Contractors, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

260 A.D.2d 253, 688 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161

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

DecidedApril 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 253 (Teddy Giannopulos General Contractors, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Teddy Giannopulos General Contractors, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority, 260 A.D.2d 253, 688 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 12, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner general contractor’s application to annul respondent Housing Authority’s determination denying petitioner’s claim for delay damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner fails to present proof that any delay in replacing the defaulting electrical contractor was “grossly negligent conduct” defeating the no-damage-for-delay clause in the parties’ contract (see, Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 67 NY2d 297, 309). In fact, all of the delays petitioner points to were of a type contemplated by the contract, which provided that there would be no increased payments. Hence, the petition was properly dismissed.

Petitioner’s contention that dismissal was premature because disclosure is necessary lacks merit. It is apparent that petitioner is merely speculating that there may have been grossly negligent conduct. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 12, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner general contractor’s application to annul respondent Housing Authority’s determination denying petitioner’s claim for delay damages, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner fails to present proof that any delay in replacing the defaulting electrical contractor was “grossly negligent conduct” defeating the no-damage-for-delay clause in the parties’ contract (see, Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 67 NY2d 297, 309). In fact, all of the delays petitioner points to were of a type contemplated by the contract, which provided that there would be no increased payments. Hence, the petition was properly dismissed.

Petitioner’s contention that dismissal was premature because disclosure is necessary lacks merit. It is apparent that petitioner is merely speculating that there may have been grossly negligent conduct. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 253, 688 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teddy-giannopulos-general-contractors-inc-v-new-york-city-housing-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack