Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Manhattan, New York, a “Supreme Court judge partially granted a temporary restraining order to Africa Israel,” which “means the developer does not at this time have to cede control of the Downtown Condominium board to unit owners, following a February lawsuit against the developers by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” according to The Real Deal.
The condominium battle began after Schneiderman filed suit against the developers, claiming that they did not fix construction defects, which in turn caused them to fail to obtain a certificate of occupancy, reported The Real Deal. The attorney general “also alleged that the pair misappropriated more than $9 million placed in an escrow account to finance those repairs.”
However, according to The Real Deal, Africa Israel has claimed not to be a sponsor of the building. “Attorney Aaron Abraham, representing both Africa Israel and the sponsor of 15 Broad, claimed …that Africa Israel, an Israeli development firm led by billionaire Lev Leviev, never signed any documents claiming to be a sponsor of the building, noting that the sponsor principals were Boymelgreen and Pinchas Cohen.”
Steve Sladkus, attorney for the condominium unit owners, told The Real Deal, “They partnered up with Boymelgreen — they need to deal with the fallout of that.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice
August 07, 2023 —
Michael Zehner - The Dispute ResolverIn the June 22, 2023 edition of the Toolbox Talk Series,
Adrian Bastianelli, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., and
Brian Cashmere, Williams Mullen, moderated by Jennifer Millender of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), discussed motion practice in arbitration. Specifically, they offered advice on how to choose the right issue for a motion, how to get approval for a motion, how to write the motion, and how to get the arbitrator to grant it. They also discussed the pros and cons of motion writing in arbitration settings.
1. How to choose the “right issue” for a motion in arbitration
The panel discussed what type of issues can, or should, be brought up in a motion in arbitration. Cashmere stated that a clear and concise issue is best for this type of review. For example, statute of limitations, notice, or contract interpretation issues may make great summary judgment or partial summary judgment motions. Essentially, an issue that the arbitrator may resolve via primarily a question of law is more likely to succeed. Bastianelli warned against submitting just any “available” motion, as the practice may turn the arbitrator against you. Both panelists mentioned the need to consider strategy before filing a motion—ask, “how will filing this motion help or hurt reachingArbi final resolution.” Cashmere noted that sometimes the threat of bringing the issue to a hearing can put pressure on the adverse party in a way that is favorable to your client’s goals; possibly even more so than actually submitting the issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Zehner, BBG Construction LawMr. Zehner may be contacted at
mzehner@bbglaw.com
Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery
June 18, 2014 —
Callie Bost – BloombergSomeone thinks the housing rebound is built on shaky foundations.
A record 180,000 puts traded on the SPDR S&P Homebuilders (XHB) exchange-traded fund on June 11, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The contract with the highest ownership pays off in the event of a 20 percent slump by December in the ETF tracking stocks from DR Horton Inc. to Williams-Sonoma Inc.
Prospects for rising interest rates and an uneven recovery in the housing market have hurt returns this year, sending the SPDR Homebuilders ETF down 3.3 percent. While economic data yesterday showed that builders broke ground on 1 million U.S. homes in May, permits, a proxy for future construction, decreased because of fewer applications for condominiums and apartment buildings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Bost may be contacted at
cbost2@bloomberg.net
Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI
December 13, 2022 —
Renee Mortimer - Lewis BrisboisHighland, Ind. (November 21, 2022) - Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer was recently named "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI). She was officially recognized at a Board & Officers dinner the evening before the DTCI's annual conference, which took place in Michigan City, Indianapolis from November 17 to 18.
The DTCI gives out three awards every year as part of its annual conference, including "Defense Lawyer of the Year," "Diplomat," and "Outstanding Young Lawyer." This year, two recipients received the "Diplomat" recognition
"I am honored to receive this recognition from my peers and look forward to continuing my work with the DTCI," said Ms. Mortimer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Renee Mortimer, Lewis BrisboisMs. Mortimer may be contacted at
Renee.Mortimer@lewisbrisbois.com
Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off
August 06, 2014 —
David Voreacos – BloombergDonald Trump sued two Atlantic City casinos that he no longer operates to force their owner either to improve “appalling” conditions or remove his name in a market where gamblers are fleeing and bankruptcies are rising.
Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino and Trump Taj Mahal fail to meet industry standards for cleanliness, hotel services and food and beverages, according to a complaint filed yesterday in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Trump wants a judge to compel Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc., which he once controlled, to correct the shortcomings or jettison his name.
The Trump Entertainment Resorts website includes his photograph above this quote: ``The Trump casinos in Atlantic City are among the finest and most luxurious resorts you'll find anywhere in the world. I personally invite you to experience everything that we have to offer.'' Trump Plaza is set to close Sept. 16, putting 1,000 people out of work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Voreacos, BloombergMr. Voreacos may be contacted at
dvoreacos@bloomberg.net
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
Specification Challenge; Excusable Delay; Type I Differing Site Condition; Superior Knowledge
January 02, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dispute, Appeal of L.S. Black-Loeffel Civil Constructors JV, ASBCA No. 62402, 2023 WL 5827241 (ASBCA 2023), involved which party bore liability for delay—the federal government or the prime contractor–based on various legal theories. Without detailing the factual details, a number of interesting legal issues were raised in this dispute including (1) a defective specification challenge, (2) excusable delay, (3) Type I differing site condition, and (4) superior knowledge. These legal issues are discussed below.
1. Specification Challenge (Defective Specifications)
The contractor claimed that the government’s specifications were defective in regard to a thermal control plan. The government countered that the specifications were not design specifications but performance specifications. The specifications were performance based because they did not tell the contractor how to achieve the performance-based criteria.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction
May 24, 2021 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordMontgomery County, Md. is generating significant buzz among U.S. municipalities aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
