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
Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to San Diego Source, “A partnership controlled by Ure Kretowicz's Cornerstone Communities has paid a reported $25 million for a 28-acre residential parcel located on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Old Grove Road in the Rancho del Oro masterplan in Oceanside,” California.
Cornerstone plans to create a “338-unit luxury apartment development,” with amenities including “resort-level clubhouse with an Olympic size swimming pool, spa, barbecue area, conferencing center” and more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects
March 11, 2024 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverRecent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts.
The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry
May 23, 2022 —
Chad Theriot & Stan Milan - ConsensusDocsContractors working on federally funded construction projects need to be aware of the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and amendments to the Buy American Act (BAA) which have expanded the requirement that contractors use domestic goods and materials on their projects. Failure to consider these requirements could have far-reaching impacts.
Overview of Domestic-Procurement Laws and Regulations
A number of domestic-preference laws exist today, which generally require that certain goods purchased with federal funds must be produced primarily in the United States. Projects affected include Department of Transportation (DOT)-funded highways, public transportation, airports, aviation, and rail, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-funded water infrastructure initiatives, among others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chad Theriot, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs) and
Stan Millan, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Theriot may be contacted at ctheriot@joneswalker.com
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders
March 09, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found
here.
The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits
January 19, 2017 —
JT Long - Engineering News-RecordHomeowners on Jan. 6 added another lawsuit to the list pending against Millennium Partners, developer of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower, located in San Francisco’s South-of-Market district. The suit alleges that, as early as 2009, the developers knew the $350-million condo building was sinking faster than expected.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
JT Long, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered
July 09, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews KurthOn June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Upholds $68M Jury Award Over 2021 Fatal Fall in Philadelphia
January 28, 2025 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordA Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge has reaffirmed a $68.5-million jury verdict in a wrongful death case brought by the wife and child of an immigrant siding-installation worker who fell to his death while working on a small Philadelphia apartment project in late 2021.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
