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
Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case
May 10, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyOn May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013).
The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements
June 15, 2020 —
Greg Tross & Michael Krueger – Newmeyer DillionOn June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week.
The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020.
The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments.
The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any.
Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and
Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com
Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use
June 21, 2017 —
Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication.
In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & WilmerMr. Sherlock may be contacted at
ssherlock@swlaw.com
Around the State
March 27, 2019 —
Richard Glucksman & Chelsea Zwart – Construction Claims MagazineIn late 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings. These bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to have been caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists—the repairs of which were deferred by the property manager despite indications of water damage.
In addition, 2018 saw the passage of California’s updated 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The new standards, which take effect in 2020, require, in part, the installation of solar systems on certain homes. The goal of the standards is to significantly decrease the energy usage in new homes while contributing to California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans. Relatedly, new legislation, effective in 2019, aims to increase consumer protections for homeowners purchasing solar energy systems.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea Zwart, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead
November 06, 2023 —
Mark Sudol - Engineering News-RecordNew regulations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dramatically reduce federal protections of previously regulated streams and wetlands. This change will lead to further controversy and litigation as the legal terms are applied to physical features on the ground leading to conflicting interpretations by the regulated public, environmentalists and federal agencies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Sudol, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to SF Gate, almost “every one of the 423 steel rods that anchor the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span to its base has been sitting in potentially corrosive water, Caltrans officials said Tuesday — one of the most serious construction defects found yet on the $6.4 billion project.”
About a year ago, “steel rods crucial to seismic-stabilizing structures on the bridge snapped when they were tensioned.” Fixing those rods cost $25 million, while an additional $20 million had been spent determing if “additional rods and bolts are at risk of failing.”
In regards to the latest construction defects discovered, Caltrans’ chief engineer on the project, Brian Maroney, stated, “It’s not acceptable, and we’re going to fix it.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016).
Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
