Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBrad Hunter of Big Builder reported that there is “some evidence that young people who had moved in with their parents or relatives are now finding the means and the motivation to move out and get their own place.”
According to the 2013 Current Population Survey (as quoted by Big Builder), there was “a drop in the percentage of twenty-somethings living with parents. This was the first decline since 2005, back when the speculative foundations of the housing market started to crumble.” However, a study by the Harvard Joint Center on Housing found that “2.1 million more people between in their 20's lived with their parents than would have typically been the case based on normal headship rates.” This demonstrates that demand for housing should increase as this group gets older and decides to break out on their own.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature
June 11, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiVery few insurance-related bills survived the 2014 Hawaii Legislative session, with several consumer-friendly bills failing to make it out of committee.
Here is a summary of the bills that passed:
SB2365: Limits reimbursement of prescription medications in order to prevent drug prices from becoming an unreasonable cost driver of health care in workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims.
SB2470: Appropriates general funds to provide for the sustainability of the Hawaii Health Connector, but provides for greater transparency, stakeholder engagement, and legislative involvement in the activities of the Hawaii Health Connector.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”
June 10, 2024 —
Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute ResolverIn the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In
Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered.
While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying.
In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLPMr. Witry may be contacted at
bwitry@lauriebrennan.com
NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status
September 23, 2024 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists.
Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers
In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at
aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding
May 02, 2022 —
J. Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer DillionLast month marked the ten-year anniversary of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. On May 16, 2016, Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, as the final piece of the JOBS Act, which gave businesses better access to crowdfunding tactics due to the ability to raise funds based on equity. Today, the JOBS Act and the impact of equity crowdfunding more generally has grown among multiple industries, from entertainment and technology to real estate and construction, and has come a long way from the non-equity crowdfunding of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So what have been the powers that businesses gained from Title III of the JOBS Act? What has been the impact of the last ten years? Where do businesses go from here to better utilize this source of funding?
WHAT ARE THE CROWDFUNDING POWERS GIVEN BY THE JOBS ACT?
The main difference and change that the JOBS Act had on the field of "crowdfunding" was that for the first time, unaccredited investors could obtain equity stakes in businesses through online solicitations. However, a business was still required to go through the proper approved channels, like accredited crowdfunding portals to solicit and receive funding. Prior to this, crowdfunding had gotten more of an impact and reputation from platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, platforms that benefitted creative works or could act as a "pre-order" system with no guaranty of performance or quality of goods by the party seeking funds.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBack in April of this year, a seven-year old boy was electrocuted while swimming in his family’s pool in North Miami, Florida, according to CBS Miami. Now, the family is suing four companies in a wrongful death suit.
The complaint claims that the victim “was electrocuted due to a faulty pool light and electrical grounding and bonding on the pool’s lighting system.”
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., manufactured and designed the pool light. Florida Pool & Spa Center “provided periodic cleaning, maintenance and inspections of the pool,” while Gary B Electric and Construction Consultant is being sued for “improper bonding and grounding.” Also, Jorge Perez Enterprises Inspection Company is listed in the lawsuit since they conducted the inspection when the family purchased the home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement
December 21, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIf you are a member of the California construction industry you might know that the right of a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to record a mechanics lien to protect the right to payment is well protected by state law. In fact, our California Constitution, article XIV, Sec. 3 specifically elevates the right to a mechanics lien to “Constitutional right”. The right to a mechanics lien is further protected by a statutory framework, including Civil Code sec. 8122 which states:
“An owner, direct contractor, or subcontractor may not, by contract or otherwise, waive, affect, or impair any other claimant’s rights under this part, whether with or without notice, and any term of a contract that purports to do so is void and unenforceable unless and until the claimant executes and delivers a waiver and release under this article.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
