WDF Inc. v. Mar-Sal Pumbing & Heating Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 31438(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: April 22, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

WDF Inc. v Mar-Sal Pumbing & Heating Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31438(U) April 22, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653520/2018 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 653520/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 653520/2018 WDF INC., MOTION DATE 10/02/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 002 - V -

MAR-SAL PLUMBING & HEATING INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,83,84, 101,102,103,104,106,108,109,110,111,113 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,65, 66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80, 81, 82, 85,86,87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 107, 112, 114 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

ORDER

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the defendant Mar-Sal Plumbing &

Heating Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (causes

of action for breach of contract and sounding in promissory

estoppel) is DENIED (motion sequence number 001); and it is further

ORDERED that the motion of the plaintiff WDF Inc. for summary

judgment on its complaint is DENIED (motion sequence number 002);

and it is further

ORDERED that, as the Note of Issue was filed on July 28, 2022

(NYSCEF Document Number 39), counsel are directed to confer with

653520/2018 WDF INC. vs. MAR-SAL PLUMBING & HEATING Page 1 of4 Motion No. 001 002

[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 653520/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

the Clerk of Trial Assignment Part 40 on the date set for mediation

and/or trial.

DECISION

In this action alleging breach of contract and promissory

estoppel public works construction project, both parties move for

summary judgment.

On September 19, 2013, defendant Mar-Sal Plumbing & Heating

Inc. ("Mar-Sal"), a plumbing and heating subcontractor, submitted

to plaintiff WDF Inc. ("WDF"), as the prime contractor, a proposal

for plumbing work in connection with WDF's bid on a project of

non-party Dormitory Authority of the State of New York. (NYSCEF

Document Number 45).

On December 20, 2013, WDF was awarded the project by the non-

party Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, but Mar-Sal

did not commence the plumbing work despite attending the pre-

construction kickoff meeting. WDF asserts that it was ultimately

forced to complete the plumbing work without Mar-Sal and alleges

that as a result of Mar-Sal's breach of the plumbing subcontract,

it incurred significantly greater cost in carrying out its contract

with the Dormitory Authority.

Mar-Sal argues that it did not commence the work because WDF

provided additional drawings that expanded the scope of the

plumbing work beyond what was initially proposed by Mar-Sal. WDF

contends that the additional drawings were merely detailed

653520/2018 WDF INC. vs. MAR-SAL PLUMBING & HEATING Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001 002

[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 653520/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

specifications for the work, which had been already proposed by

Mar-Sal, and that the additional drawings did not expand the scope

of work. WDF also submits the letter to Joseph Krajczewksi, WDF

vice president of operations, dated May 12, 2014, signed by Mar-

Sal president Salvatore Marullo, which states

"Unfortunately Mar-Sal Plumbing & Heating Inc. cannot proceed with this project. We discovered there where (sic) many mistakes done with the pricing of this project and our previous estimator under priced it, we are truly sorry for any inconvenience this may caused (sic) your company but for this reason we choose to pull back from this agreement."

It is undisputed that there was no signed written contract

between the parties.

However, there are issues of fact whether Mar-Sal's

attendance at a pre-construction kick off meeting and

participation in the vetting process were "unequivocally

referable" to the unsigned construction agreement to perform the

plumbing work, which partial performance would remove same from

the purview of the statute of frauds. See HPP Ice Rink, Inc v

New York Islanders, 251 Ad2d 249 (l3t Dept 1998).

Moreover, as with the Letter of Intent that was the subject

of the opinion of the First Department, Appellate Division in

Bed & Beyond Inc v IBEX Constr, LLC, (52 AD3d 413, 414 [l3t Dept

2008]), the statement that "A formal contract will be forwarded

shortly", in the Letter of Intent that WDF sent to Mar-Sal, does

653520/2018 WDF INC. vs. MAR-SAL PLUMBING & HEATING Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001 002

[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 653520/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

not amount to an express reservation of rights. Nonetheless,

as this court finds there is an ambiguity as to the scope of

work thereunder, there remains a question of fact as to the

terms of such binding agreement. See Blume v Jacobwitz, 212

AD3d 403 (1 st Dept 2023)

In addition, there are numerous triable issues on the claim

sounding in promissory estoppel, as to whether Mar-Sal "'made a

clear and unambiguous promise, upon which [plaintiff] reasonably

relied, to its detriment'" (Bunkoff Gen Contrs v Dunham Elec,

300 AD2d 976, 978 [3d Dept 2002]).

As to the claim for damages, WDF does not come forward with

evidence that establishes the extent that Mar-Sal's failure to

complete the plumbing work in accordance with its bid proposal

decreased WDF' s return under its contract with non-party owner

Dormitory Authority, and therefore no summary monetary judgment is

warranted. See Spilman v Matyas, 212 AD3d 859, 860 (2d Dept 2023)

P-~ fl - } ~ 20240422154508DJAMES18861050F53341299684A194A479E21D

4/22/2024 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

653520/2018 WDF INC. vs. MAR-SAL PLUMBING & HEATING Page4 of 4 Motion No. 001 002

[* 4] 4 of 4