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
Killer Subcontract Provisions
January 20, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupWe are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
- PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
- CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
- CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage
August 27, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the insurer's argument that coverage was barred for the insured's contractual assumption of liability of another. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am v. Peaker Serv., Inc., 2014 WL 3605680 (Mich. Ct. App. July 22, 2014).
The contractor was hired to install an "electronic over-speed system" at the University of Michigan. The hope was that the new system would prevent the steam turbines at the central power plant from turning too quickly. The parties' contract provided,
“Section 15.18. Supplier Damage to University Property. Without regard to any other section of the Agreement, Supplier shall be responsible for the costs to return to ‘as was’ condition from any damage caused to the building, grounds, or other equipment and furnishings caused in whole or part by Supplier Personnel while performing activities arising under this Agreement.”
The contractor improperly calibrated the system, causing one of the university's turbines to operate at twice the safe operational speed, causing significant damage to the generator equipment. The university sued the contractor for more than $3 million in damages. Travelers defended, but filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that coverage did not exist because the "contractual liability" exclusion applied. Section 15.18 of the contract purportedly constituted an "assumption" of the insured's own liability, and was therefore not covered under the CGL policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?
October 10, 2022 —
Kerianne Kane Luckett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Can an indemnification clause in a commercial lease obligate a tenant’s insurer to defend a landlord? Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York said, “Yes!” On August 9, 2022, the district court issued a decision in ConMed Corp. vs. Federal Insurance Company, holding that the indemnification clause in a policyholder’s lease triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the landlord in an action arising out of the tenant’s negligence.
Facts of the Case
ConMed is a medical technology company that leases warehouse space in Georgia from Breit Industrial Canyon (“the Landlord”) to sterilize its medical equipment. ConMed’s employees filed suit against ConMed and a contractor that performed the sterilization, alleging injuries caused by exposure to excessive amounts of chemicals used in the sterilization process (the “ConMed Action”). Thereafter, ConMed’s employees filed a separate lawsuit against the Landlord, alleging that the Landlord permitted storage of unsafe levels of the chemicals at the warehouse without adequate ventilation (the “Landlord Action”). The lease agreement required ConMed to indemnify the Landlord “except in the event of, and to the extent of, Landlord’s negligence or willful misconduct.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne Kane Luckett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Luckett may be contacted at
KKane@sdvlaw.com
Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings
May 17, 2021 —
Max De Haldevang & Maya Averbuch - BloombergThe collapse of a long-troubled Mexico City metro track killed 24 people and put two of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s top allies in the line of fire Monday night, after a decade of safety concerns and probes surrounding the project.
About 79 people were injured, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday. A broken beam led to the incident on the Golden Line of the metro system, she said. An international agency and the attorney general’s office will investigate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Max De Haldevang, Bloomberg and
Maya Averbuch, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court in New York Court Dismisses Civil Authority Claim for COVID-19 Coverage
October 11, 2021 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanCourts nationwide have been grappling with coverage for business interruption claims arising from closures occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic, with mixed results by jurisdiction. A recent decision on the issue from the federal Southern District of New York sheds light on New York law regarding this pressing issue.
In Elite Union Installations, LLC v. National Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 2021 WL 4155016 (Sept. 13, 2021), directives issued by governmental authorities required the insured construction company to shut its doors, leading to a layoff of some employees while others continued to work from home. The insured made a claim under its commercial property coverage for damage to its premises, which it claimed were rendered “uninhabitable” and required repair in the form of alterations to comply with social distancing requirements. In the ensuing coverage litigation, National Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging covered first-party property damage defined in the policy as “direct physical loss of or damage to property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year
January 14, 2015 —
Carlos Torres – BloombergThe biggest private employment increase in 17 years was driven by gains among above-average paying jobs, dispelling the popular notion that the U.S. is turning into a nation of fast-food workers.
Industries that pay employees more than the average for all workers accounted for 66 percent of total jobs created in 2014, based on data compiled by Bloomberg from Labor Department records. Business services -- staffing agencies, accountants, consultants and computer-system designers -- and goods producers, including construction firms and manufacturers, were among those hiring the most.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Carlos Torres, BloombergMr. Torres may be contacted at t
ctorres2@bloomberg.net
Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company
September 28, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Eghtesad v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 51 Cal.App.5th 406 (June 29, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) based on an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend regarding a complaint filed by Nader Eghtesad. Mr. Eghtesad, representing himself, filed a form complaint checking a box for breach of contract. The complaint alleged two paragraphs contending that State Farm had acted in bad faith and concealed benefits due under a policy issued to a former tenant who rented space in a building owned by Eghtesad. Eghtesad was an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. In that regard, the building was damaged during the time that the building was rented and Eghtesad tendered a claim under the State Farm policy contending that he was an additional insured pursuant to the terms of the lease with the tenant. According to Eghtesad, State Farm advised him that he could only make a claim for slander against the former tenant and that coverage was not afforded for his property damage claim.
After Eghtesad filed his form complaint, State Farm demurred to the complaint and argued that it did not state facts supporting a cause of action for breach of contract. Ultimately, the trial court agreed with State Farm and entered an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, such that a judgment was entered in State Farm’s favor. Due to health reasons, Eghtesad was never able to file an opposition to the demurrer, despite two extensions of time provided by the trial court intended to allow Eghtesad time to retain counsel and to recover from injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
