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
Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices
January 21, 2015 —
Vinicy Chan – BloombergWhat do New York’s most famous hotel, the Lloyd’s of London building and the headquarters of the U.K.’s top law firm have in common? They’re all owned by Chinese insurers.
This new breed of buyers, who weren’t allowed to invest overseas before 2012, are flooding into the global market for prime commercial real estate after being given more freedom to deploy their $1.6 trillion of assets. That has meant good times for sellers of trophy real estate in major cities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vinicy Chan, BloombergMs. Chan may be contacted at
vchan91@bloomberg.net
Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023
November 21, 2022 —
Haight Brown & BonesteelHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2023 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Insurance Law
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 2
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation
December 13, 2022 —
Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana FeldWho does not love a good souffle?! Enthusiasts will know that a great souffle is not something you can obtain quickly. Rather, it is common in restaurants to order the souffle as dessert at the beginning of the meal because it takes an hour to bake. Risk transfer – like a good souffle – also requires planning, preparation, and the right ingredients.
In construction litigation, attorneys are often not retained until after the project has been completed for several years as the dispute between the homeowner and the general contractor or developer took time to escalate to formal litigation. A significant part of defense counsel’s legal analysis involves assessing and evaluating risk transfer opportunities. For example, in the case of a general contractor or developer who did not self-perform the construction work but instead retained subcontractors to do so, counsel will assess if risk can be transferred from the general contractor or developer to the subcontractors who performed the work which the homeowners allege is defective. In other words, a developer or general contractor can reduce their risk (i.e. liability and money owed) by transferring said risk (i.e. pointing the finger at) to a third party.
Sounds easy, right? Unfortunately, just like the souffle making process, it is easier said than done. This task can be exceedingly difficult in the absence of contracts that contain strong indemnity and insurance provisions – the essential ingredients to effect risk transfer. Worry not! We have provided “baking” instructions for you below to help you get a great risk transfer souffle time and again.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld
Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims
March 19, 2024 —
Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis passed Senate Bill 360, effective April 13, 2023, which imposes significant changes to Florida’s statute of limitation (“SOL”) and statute of repose (“SOR”) periods prescribed in Florida Statute § 95.11. In short, the SOL and SOR periods will commence earlier and run earlier, which in effect shortens the time to bring a construction defect claim on both ends of the timeline.1
These changes will have positive impacts for general contractors who may save on insurance premiums with shorter completed operations tails. In other words, the timeframe within which contractors are at risk of being sued for construction-related errors is significantly reduced under the new version of the statute. Owners and developers, on the other hand, may feel that the increased pressure of uncovered construction defects necessitates the filing of lawsuits sooner than they might have otherwise filed. Collectively, all parties involved will certainly have to consider when and how to place their carriers on notice of claims or potential claims and, coupled with Florida’s sweeping changes to fee shifting statutes, insured parties may see more coverage denials which, in turn, could lead to more coverage actions.2
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Rice may be contacted at
HRice@sdvlaw.com
Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions
December 19, 2018 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete. Although the holding in Dodev is important, the facts of the case are truly astonishing…and somewhat depressing.
The Facts
In Dodev, Ivaylo Dodev (Dodev) defaulted on his home loan in 2008. He nevertheless “succeeded in remaining on the [p]roperty by filing numerous legal actions that delayed the foreclosure and subsequent trustee’s sale” at least through the date of the opinion—a ten (10) year period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe streets around the Omni Building in Lubbock, Texas have been barricaded for an indefinite period, since the marble panels have been falling off the building. The panels weight about 300 pounds each.
The building’s owners attempted to remedy the problem by replacing the marble with stucco, but that too came loose in the wind and fell to the ground. The city issued a stop work order preventing the installation of any more stucco. The city “told them that all needed to come down, both the old and the new,” according to Steve O’Neil, the city’s chief building official.
The city has filed a lawsuit to compel the owners to fix the building. Glen Robertson, Lubbock’s mayor, sees another possible solution, “or demolish it because, as it stands right now, it is truly a health and safety hazard to our citizens.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consider Arbitration Provision in Homebuilder’s Warranty and Purchase-and-Sale Agreement
November 18, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen you enter into a contract with a homebuilder, particularly a tract homebuilder, please consider two things when it comes to dispute resolution: (1) your purchase-and-sale agreement likely contains an arbitration provision, and (2) your limited warranty agreement you get in connection with closing likely also reinforces the arbitration provision, especially with warranty claims governed by the limited warranty agreement. This dispute resolution is important because it means the homebuilder wants disputes resolved through the arbitration process and NOT through the litigation process (where the nature of disputes and allegations are public).
Look, there are pros and cons with arbitration, no different than litigation. Arbitrating a dispute is not necessarily a bad thing, and with certain disputes, ideal. There is no right to appeal in arbitration, but the dispute should resolve itself quicker than litigation, and you’ll have more control over the decision maker, i.e., the arbitrator.
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
