Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List
September 01, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to announce that it has been ranked fourth among medium sized companies in the
Best Places to Work in Orange County – 2016 Survey. The firm was the only law firm to make the top 25 of its category. This marks the fifth consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list showing that its deep commitment to professionalism and client service is shared and appreciated by its workforce.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner, believes the award is representative of the team effort and atmosphere that is fostered at the firm. “We believe that client satisfaction goes hand-in-hand with work-place satisfaction. By combining an environment in which individual effort is recognized, with a team approach in which everyone is respected, we have achieved the perfect balance for success. We are honored that our employees appreciate our efforts in this regard.”
Created in 2009, the awards program evaluates entries based on workplace policies, practices, demographics and also collects employee surveys to measure overall satisfaction and experience. The Best Companies Group worked alongside the Orange County Business Journal in collecting and analyzing the data and is a partner in the project.
Newmeyer & Dillion has been honored in the July 25 issue of the Orange County Business Journal. For more information on the survey process and to see other award recipients contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159 or visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants
July 21, 2018 —
Erik Larson - BloombergKushner Cos. is being investigated in New York over allegations the real-estate company used disruptive construction projects to harass rent-regulated tenants so they’d move out of their apartments.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Tenant Protection Unit opened the probe after residents of Austin Nichols House in Brooklyn accused Kushner Cos. in a lawsuit of doing work "that released dangerous toxins into the air and created unlivable conditions for tenants, including vermin and excessive construction noise," the state said Monday in a statement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Erik Larson, Bloomberg
Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project
August 26, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorFlow-Down or pass-through clauses obligate downstream contractors to certain provisions contained in the up up-stream contractor contracts, such as the contract between the general contractor and the owner. These clauses are contained in every major form subcontract and they can expand the scope of your potential liability. This blog will look at typical language of a flow-down clause, what it means and how you can deal with them.
Typical Flow-Down Clause
A simple flow down clause might provide:
“The Subcontractor agrees to be bound to the Contractor by the terms of the prime contract and to assume to the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor by those documents assumes to the Owner, except to the extent that the provisions contained therein are by the terms or by law applicable only to the Contractor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims
May 17, 2021 —
Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsTime is of the essence in the construction industry, and failing to provide timely notice of your payment bond claim can end your chance of recovery. Payment bonds guarantee payment for the subcontractors and suppliers who provide labor or materials on covered construction projects. Federal and state statutes governing payment bonds on public projects and the specific terms of non-statutory, private payment bonds have strict notice and timing requirements. Claimants who fail to provide timely notice can forfeit their chance of recovery. This article provides a brief overview of the notice requirements for payment bond claims – who has to give notice, what notice is required, and when you have to give notice.
Payment bond protection is a frequent feature in construction. Payment bonds are required on most federal construction projects of over $100,000 under the federal Miller Act. Similar state statutes, typically referred to as “Little Miller Acts,” also require payment bonds on most state and local construction projects. Owners on private projects may require their general contractor to provide a payment bond to protect the property from liens. Finally, general contractors may also require subcontractors to provide payment bonds on public or private projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLPMr. Broughton may be contacted at
cbroughton@joneswalker.com
Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can
March 15, 2021 —
Jodi Stein & Jennifer Dickson - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogNot your average game of patty-cake! Earlier this week, New York’s First Department, Appellate Division issued its decision related to 200 Amsterdam,[1] overturning the lower court’s decision which would have required 200 Amsterdam to remove several floors of its building in order to comply with zoning. The lower court determined that the NYC Zoning Resolution did not permit a developer to utilize a portion of a tax lot to merge with a neighboring zoning lot.
Known as the “gerrymandered zoning lot,” the developer of 200 Amsterdam included portions of neighboring tax lots in its zoning lot in order to transfer air rights from those portions of tax lots to be utilized in 200 Amsterdam’s 55-story development. The inclusion of partial tax lots in a zoning lot is not expressly discussed in the NYC Zoning Resolution, but was permitted by a 1978 Department of Buildings memo. While challenges to 200 Amsterdam started in 2017, the developer moved forward with the construction of its development under lawfully issued building permits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jodi Stein, Sheppard Mullin and
Jennifer Dickson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Stein may be contacted at jstein@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Dickson may be contacted at jdickson@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Claims Against Broker Dismissed
June 20, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiClaims that the broker failed to secure adequate coverage for condominium owners were dismissed. Ting Lin v. Mountain Valley Indemn. Co., 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1254 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 10, 2022).
The amended complaint alleged the agent, Century Max Inc., breached its duty to advise and sell to plaintiffs a homeowners and fire policy far in excess of $100,000 for their condominium unit, which was worth in excess of $600,000. Century moved to dismiss
A fire in the building forced all owners to vacate their units. The entire building was thereafter declared unsafe for habitation by the City of New York. The condominium owners met and voted to not restore the building, but to sell the burnt-out shell and distribute the sales proceeds and the condominium's insurance among the unit owners. There was no indication that the owners would not be made whole once the funds were distributed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
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
Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim
September 07, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me.
One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land.
In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
