construction contracts – Duane Morris Construction Law

December 22, 2025December 22, 2025 by Jose A. Aquino

Under Article 3‑A of the NY Lien Law, Settlement Proceeds Are Trust Assets — Not a Source of Contractor Reimbursement

A recent decision from the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, reinforces how strictly New York courts apply the trust-fund rules of Article 3-A of the Lien Law, particularly when settlement funds are involved. In L.C. Whitford Co., Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Solar Energy, Inc., the Court held that a general contractor could not use settlement proceeds to reimburse itself for project costs it claimed to have advanced, even where those advances were used to pay subcontractors.

The case arose out of several solar construction projects that ended in disputes and delays. The project owners and the general contractor ultimately resolved their disputes through a confidential settlement that resulted in a multimillion-dollar payment to the contractor. Subcontractors with pending mechanic’s liens objected when the contractor stated that it intended to apply a portion of the settlement funds to reimburse itself for monies it had previously advanced on the jobs.

The Appellate Division agreed with the subcontractors. The Court concluded that the settlement proceeds were trust assets under Article 3-A because they were paid in connection with contracts for the improvement of real property. Once funds are deemed trust assets, the Lien Law strictly limits how they may be used. For a contractor acting as trustee, those funds must be applied first to pay subcontractors, laborers, and material suppliers.

The contractor argued that it should be allowed to reimburse itself because it had used its own money to pay subcontractors when project funds were exhausted. The Court rejected that argument, emphasizing that the Lien Law does not permit a contractor‑trustee to place itself ahead of unpaid trust beneficiaries. The statutory language governing the use of trust assets “is mandatory.” Unlike an owner, a contractor has no statutory right to apply trust funds toward its own “costs of improvement.” Until all valid trust claims are satisfied, the contractor has no beneficial interest in the trust funds at all.

Because the proposed reimbursement would have diverted trust assets away from subcontractors with unresolved claims, the Court held that it would violate the contractor’s fiduciary obligations under Article 3-A. The injunction barring any use of the settlement funds without court approval was therefore properly granted.

The dissent took a different view, reasoning that nothing in the statute prohibits the use of trust assets to reimburse payments made for proper trust purposes before trust assets were available. It cautioned that the majority’s interpretation could discourage contractors from advancing their own funds to keep projects moving when owners fail to pay on time. The majority, however, reaffirmed that Article 3‑A is designed to protect subcontractors first and foremost, even if doing so places the financial risk of such advances squarely on the contractor.

The decision underscores that settlement proceeds from construction projects are not available for contractor reimbursement when trust claims remain unresolved. Contractors who front their own funds do so at their own risk, while subcontractors retain strong protections under Article 3‑A to ensure settlement funds are used exclusively to satisfy trust claims..

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on X) is a special counsel at Duane Morris LLP’s New York office, where he is a member of Construction Group, specializing in construction law, lien law, and government procurement law. He is also a member of the Cuba Business Group.

This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Duane Morris LLP or its individual attorneys.

December 15, 2025 by Jose A. Aquino

Strict Compliance With Notice‑To‑Cure Provisions In Construction Contracts

Strict compliance with notice‑to‑cure provisions is essential in construction contracts, particularly when a contractor seeks to terminate a subcontract for cause. These provisions are designed to ensure that subcontractors receive clear, written notice of alleged defaults and a defined period to cure them before facing termination. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that failure to follow these procedures can make a termination invalid and expose the contractor to liability.

In the recent case of Pizzarotti, LLC v. MDB Development Corp., the New York Appellate Division, First Department, reinforced this principle. The general contractor terminated its concrete subcontractor on May 22, 2018, citing performance failures. The court found the termination invalid because the contractor had not complied with the subcontract’s requirement that termination for cause could occur only if the subcontractor failed to cure a default within five calendar days after receiving written notice. The last correspondence that could arguably qualify as a notice of default was sent on January 31, 2018, identifying incomplete work. In the months that followed, the subcontractor substantially completed much of that work. Later emails and letters did not amount to valid notices of default: a February email confirmed that most problems were fixed and left only minor punch‑list items, while the March and April letters about liens did not start the notice‑to‑cure process, since the contractor removed the liens itself and only mentioned applying back charges. By allowing this time to pass without further notice, the contractor effectively waived its right to terminate based on those alleged defaults.

The court cited Bast Hatfield, Inc. v. Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc., where a contractor issued a 48‑hour notice but then waited more than a month while the subcontractor corrected deficiencies. When the contractor later terminated without issuing any further notice, the court held that it had waived its right to rely on those defaults. The same reasoning applied in Pizzarotti: delay and informal communications cannot excuse the formal notice required by contract.

The Appellate Division also rejected the claim that the subcontractor abandoned the project. Although its last work on site occurred on February 27, 2018, the subcontractor continued to communicate with the contractor and the engineer of record, expressing readiness to complete remaining items pending direction. These communications demonstrated that the subcontractor had not repudiated the subcontract, and therefore the contractor could not bypass the notice‑to‑cure requirement.

Together, Pizzarotti and Bast Hatfield underscore that termination for cause requires strict adherence to contractual procedures. Contractors who fail to comply risk not only forfeiting their termination rights but also incurring substantial exposure to breach‑of‑contract claims and related liabilities.

August 19, 2025August 19, 2025 by Duane Morris

Managing Tariff Volatility in Construction Contracts

The U.S. construction market is facing a new level of uncertainty driven by international trade decisions as tariffs become more frequent and unpredictable. Few factors unsettle a construction budget faster than uncertainty. When that uncertainty stems from tariff policies—where prices for essential materials can rise sharply with little warning—the impact is felt across the industry. Tariff volatility disrupts finances, supply chains, and project timelines, placing profitability and stability at risk. Read the full Building Design + Construction article by Jose Aquino.

September 5, 2024September 5, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

Court Emphasizes Strict Compliance in Construction Contracts

In a recent ruling, a New York appellate court sided with a contractor in a dispute over a 33-story building project.[1] The contractor initially hired a subcontractor to supply equipment for the project, but the subcontract was later assigned to another entity. Shortly thereafter, the contractor alleged breaches of the subcontract, terminated the agreement, and took possession of the equipment. The contractor then filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for delays and additional costs resulting from the defendants’ defective work. In response, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought foreclosure of mechanic’s liens. They also filed a third-party claim against the property owner and its surety, seeking to foreclose on the liens.

The court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims and third-party claims, highlighting the defendants’ reliance on unsigned and unnotarized requisitions and change orders, which failed to meet the contractual requirements. The court citing precedent underscored that payment requisitions must be both signed and notarized, and that change orders must be formally documented and mutually approved in strict compliance with the terms of the contract.[2]

Additionally, the court found that the contractor had provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for delay damages. The contractor presented documentation detailing additional work performed by other vendors, as well as payments made to replacement subcontractors, due to the delays attributed to the defendants. The court found that such evidence raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the impact of the defendants’ actions on the project’s timeline and costs, prompting the court to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue.

The court also rejected the defendants’ claims for unpaid equipment rental, as they were unable to demonstrate that the proposed monthly rental rates had been agreed upon. The subcontract specified only a 12-month rental period, and the defendants could not provide evidence of any additional rental terms beyond that period.

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to contractual documentation and approval processes in construction projects. It serves as a reminder to contractors and subcontractors alike to ensure that all requisitions and change orders are properly signed, notarized, and approved to avoid disputes and potential legal challenges. Furthermore, the ruling underscores the necessity of maintaining thorough records and evidence to substantiate claims for damages and delays. The court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing strict compliance with agreed upon contract terms.

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on X) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and of the Cuba Business Group. Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on construction law, lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

[1] Hudson Meridian Construction Group LLC v. Bayport Construction Corp., 228 A.D.3d 531, 215 N.Y.S.3d 78 (1st Dept. 2024)

[2] F. Garofalo Elec. Co. v. New York Univ., 270 A.D.2d 76, 80, 705 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1st Dept. 2000), lv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 825, 712 N.Y.S.2d 450, 734 N.E.2d 762 (2000); Martin Iron & Constr. Corp. v. Howell Co., 242 A.D.2d 608, 609, 664 N.Y.S.2d 746 (2d Dept. 1997).

January 3, 2019 by Jose A. Aquino

NY Governor Vetoes Bill To Allow Delay Damages On Public Contracts

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ended 2018 by vetoing New York Senate Bill 6686 to amend the state finance law by adding a new section 138-b to allow contractors working on public construction projects seek delay damages against government agencies. The vetoed bill would have required all public contracts to contain a clause allowing a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to make a claim for costs due to excusable delays resulting from actions or omissions by a public owner or any of its representatives. The bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Michael Ranzenhofer (Republican) and Luis Sepulveda (Democrat) passed the Assembly by a vote of 103 to 40 and the Senate 59 to 0. The text of the bill can be seen here.

Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on Twitter) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group and of the Duane Morris Cuba Business Group. Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on commercial litigation with a concentration in construction law, mechanics’ lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual attorneys.

November 11, 2015 by Duane Morris

Eastern District of New York Issues Decision in Recent Construction Contracts Case

By Michael L. Chartan, partner in the Construction Group in Duane Morris’ New York office

Construction contracts in New York and in other states frequently include provisions that bar recovery of damages for delay and require extra work to be authorized in writing. These types of provisions are enforceable. Exceptions exist that will permit recovery of delay damages and for extra work in the face of these exculpatory provisions. In Bricklayers Ins. & Welfare Fund v. Minhas Gen. Contrs. Co., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151965, Judge Frederic Block sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied summary judgment finding triable issues of material fact. Subcontractors and general contractors have limited leverage to remove these types of provisions from the contract. Nonetheless, review of project records by a knowledgeable attorney may well reveal facts to overcome these provisions.

February 22, 2013July 29, 2014 by Jose A. Aquino

Importance Of Using Consistent Terms In A Construction Contract

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reminds us of the importance of using consistent terms when drafting a construction contract. In Clinton Assoc. For A Renewed Envt. Inc. v. Monadock Constr. Inc., defendants, pursuant to a contract (the “Contract”), agreed to provide architectural services and contract administration services to plaintiffs.[i] As part of their work, defendants prepared architectural plans, including specifications for the design system and choice of materials for the exterior masonry wall system. The Certificate of Substantial Completion was signed on March 29, 2006 and, at or about that time, the masonry walls began to fail, causing the walls to bulge and take on water. It was determined that the walls could not withstand the weather cycles to which they were exposed. Following Substantial Completion of the project, defendants worked extensively to cure the flaws in the masonry walls by, among other things, creating an alternate design and supervising the corrective work until August 18, 2008, when an Architect’s Certificate approving the repairs was issued.

Continue reading “Importance Of Using Consistent Terms In A Construction Contract”