construction law – Duane Morris Construction Law

December 20, 2024December 20, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

Mechanic’s Liens and Licensing Laws: Court Ruling Highlights Strict Enforcement

The recent decision by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, in the case of Mikoma Electric, LLC, et al. v. Otek Builders, LLC, et al., emphasizes the importance of adhering to licensing requirements within the construction industry. The case revolves around a dispute where plaintiffs, Mikoma Electric, LLC (Mikoma Electric), and Mikoma Technology of Power and Lights Wiring and Control Limited Liability Partnership (Mikoma Tech), sought to recover damages for breach of contract from Otek Builders, LLC, the general contractor for various WeWork properties.

Mikoma Tech, which was not licensed to perform electrical work in New York City, subcontracted with Otek Builders to carry out electrical work on several properties. Although Mikoma Electric, a licensed entity, obtained the necessary permits and allegedly supervised the work, the court found that this arrangement did not satisfy the licensing requirements stipulated by the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27–3017(a), This section mandates that electrical work must be performed by a licensed master electrician or under their direct supervision.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and discharge the mechanic’s liens filed by Mikoma Tech, arguing that Mikoma Tech’s lack of a proper license barred its recovery. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The appellate court held that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants, which included printouts from the New York City Department of Buildings’ webpage, did not meet the criteria for documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1). However, the court agreed that Mikoma Tech’s failure to obtain the required license precluded it from recovering under breach of contract or quantum meruit theories and from foreclosing on its mechanic’s liens. Consequently, the Appellate Court dismissed the complaint as to Mikoma Tech and discharged the mechanic’s liens filed by Mikoma Tech.

This decision underscores the strict interpretation of licensing statutes aimed at protecting public health and welfare. The court emphasized that employing or subcontracting work to a licensed entity does not fulfill the statutory requirements if the primary contractor is unlicensed. Consequently, Mikoma Tech’s argument that it should recover because Mikoma Electric, a licensed subcontractor, performed the work was deemed insufficient.

The ruling serves as a critical reminder for contractors and subcontractors in New York City to ensure compliance with licensing regulations to avoid forfeiting their lien rights and the right to recover payments for their work. It also highlights the importance of understanding and adhering to legal requirements in contractual agreements within the construction industry.

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.

December 14, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

Appellate Court Ruling Clarifies Legal Boundaries of Surety Roles in Mechanic’s Liens

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, recently issued a decision in Thorobird Grand LLC et al. v. M. Melnick & Co., Inc., et al., affirming the lower court’s ruling that granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their cause of action alleging willful exaggeration of mechanic’s liens by the defendant Surety.^{^[1]} The court invalidated and discharged the Surety’s liens but denied the plaintiffs’ claim for damages under Lien Law § 39-a.

The court determined that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the Surety did not meet the statutory definition of a contractor under Lien Law § 2, thereby invalidating its liens. The plaintiffs had engaged M. Melnick & Co., Inc. as their general contractor for certain projects. In accordance with their agreement, Melnick, along with the Surety acting as Melnick’s guarantor, executed payment and performance bonds. Upon Melnick’s termination, which triggered the Surety’s obligations under the performance bond, the Surety elected to retain Melnick to complete the project.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs initiated an action asserting breach of contract claims against both Melnick and the Surety. In response, the Surety filed three mechanic’s liens for unpaid work, while Melnick filed its own liens. The Surety also counterclaimed against the plaintiffs and additional counterclaim defendants, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and lien foreclosures. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint that included, among other claims, a cause of action for willful exaggeration of liens.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the willful exaggeration claim, contending that the Surety’s liens were invalid as a matter of law because sureties lack the right to file mechanic’s liens. In opposition, the Surety argued that it qualified as a contractor with standing to file liens and had not waived its lien rights by contract.

The court concluded that the takeover agreement between the parties was clear and unambiguous, establishing that the Surety remained in its capacity as a surety and did not assume the role of a contractor. As a result, the court found the Surety lacked standing to file mechanic’s liens. However, it declined to award damages to the plaintiffs under Lien Law § 39-a, noting that such damages are unavailable when a lien is discharged for reasons other than willful exaggeration.

This decision underscores the importance of precise contractual language and the legal distinction between a surety and a contractor in disputes involving mechanic’s liens.

[1] 2024 WL 5080524 (1st Dep’t December 12, 2024)

December 12, 2024December 12, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

Mechanic’s Liens: Examining and Enforcing Through Foreclosure Actions vs. Special Proceedings

In the matter of Arcadia Landing, LLC v. CVM Construction Corp., the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, recently rendered a decision concerning a mechanic’s lien filed by CVM Construction Corp. The petitioner, Arcadia Landing, LLC, demanded an itemized statement of the lien pursuant to Lien Law § 38, which CVM Construction Corp. provided along with supporting exhibits. However, Arcadia Landing deemed the response insufficient and sought further details through an amended petition.

The Supreme Court, Nassau County, presided over by Judge Eileen C. Daly-Sapraicone, denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order.

Lien Law § 38 mandates that a lienor must furnish a written statement detailing the labor and materials that constitute the lien, along with the terms of the contract. In this instance, CVM Construction Corp. complied by listing the items of work and asserting that the work was completed. The petitioner disputed the completion of the work, but the court determined that such disputes are more appropriately resolved in an action to enforce the mechanic’s lien rather than through additional demands for information in the special proceeding under Lien Law § 38.

This decision is consistent with the precedent established in Matter of Mr. White, L.L.C. v. Pink Shirt Constr., Inc., where the court exercised its discretion to vacate and cancel a mechanic’s lien because the respondent failed to commence an action to enforce the lien as required by Lien Law § 59. The validity of the lien and any disputes regarding the completion of work were to be resolved in a foreclosure action, which the respondent in that case admitted it never commenced. Similarly, in the Arcadia Landing case, the court emphasized that the appropriate forum for resolving disputes about the completion of work is in a foreclosure action, not through procedural demands for more detailed statements.

This decision underscores the critical importance of resolving factual disputes concerning the completion of work delineated in a mechanic’s lien within the context of a foreclosure action, rather than through a special proceeding seeking an itemization of the lien. The appellate court’s affirmation of the lower court’s decision elucidates the judiciary’s position on the adequacy of compliance with Lien Law § 38 and delineates the proper procedural avenues for addressing such disputes.

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.

[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).

August 25, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

New York NY Court Dismisses Construction Defect Case Over Statute of Limitations

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit related to alleged construction defects.[1] The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached their remodeling contract by improperly installing flooring in the plaintiff’s basement. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Under New York law, breach of contract claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.[2] This limitations period begins to run upon the contractor’s completion of the work. In this case, the court determined that the claim accrued on May 26, 2015, the date on which the plaintiff made the final payment under the contract, with no subsequent work performed. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on January 21, 2022, well beyond the six-year statutory period.

The court also considered the potential tolling of the statute of limitations due to executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, even with these tolling provisions, the court found the plaintiff’s action untimely. Consequently, the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint was upheld on appeal.

In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Appellate Division emphasized that the burden rests with the defendant to establish that the statute of limitations has expired. Once this burden is met, the plaintiff must then demonstrate a factual basis for tolling the statute of limitations or show that the claim was filed within the statutory period. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present a factual issue that could preclude dismissal, resulting in the affirmation of the dismissal the complaint.

The ruling underscores the critical importance of understanding and adhering to the statute of limitations in construction-related disputes. It also highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to act promptly when they believe they have a claim, as delays can easily result in losing the right to sue.

[1] Hillaire v. Jose A. Torres, ___ N.Y.S.3d ___, 2024 WL 3281628 (2d Dep’t 2024).

[2] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)

July 30, 2024July 31, 2024 by Jose A. Aquino

Revisiting The Intricacies Of New York Lien Law § 38

In the realm of construction law, disputes over the enforcement and validity of mechanic’s liens are fairly common. The recent case of 176 Washington Park LLC v. Empire Core Group LLC, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50906(U) (Sup. Ct., NY Co., June 21, 2024), serves as a classic illustration of the complexities involved.

New York Lien Law § 38 is clear in its mandate: a lienor must provide a detailed statement of the labor and materials that constitute the claimed lien amount. This includes a comprehensive breakdown of materials used, their quantities, costs, and the specifics of labor, including the nature of the work, hours spent, and the rates charged.

In 176 Washington Park LLC v. Empire Core Group LLC, the defendant’s submission fell short of these requirements. The court found the provided classifications of costs, such as “Porta Potty,” “Construction Site Signs,” “Waste Removal,” “DOB Drawings,” and “DOT Permits,” to be too general. They lacked the necessary detail regarding the nature of the labor and the hours and wages expended. Furthermore, payments to subcontractors were listed without adequate information about the services rendered or the basis for the charges.

The materials section was similarly lacking, with no specifics on the quantity or costs of materials used, despite listing the suppliers and amounts disbursed. This lack of detail ultimately led to the court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion in part, requiring the defendant to provide a proper verified itemized statement within 30 days. Failure to comply would result in the discharge of the mechanic’s lien.

This case underscores the importance of record-keeping and transparency in construction projects. It emphasizes the need of contractors and subcontractors to adhere to the requirements of Lien Law § 38 to ensure the enforceability of their liens.

August 30, 2023 by Duane Morris

Duane Morris’ Benton T. Wheatley Named Austin Construction “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers

Duane Morris partner Benton T. Wheatley has been recognized by Best Lawyers® as the “2024 Construction Lawyer of the Year” in Austin, Texas. The recognition is given to only one attorney for each practice area and city. Lawyers are selected based on high marks received during peer-review assessments conducted by Best Lawyers each year.

Continue reading “Duane Morris’ Benton T. Wheatley Named Austin Construction “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers”

December 19, 2019 by Duane Morris

New York City’s Sustainable Roof Laws Likely to Increase Construction Costs

As of November 15, 2019, building owners in New York City are required to install “sustainable roofing zones” on all newly constructed buildings, expansions of existing roofs and roof replacements. The new laws were passed by the New York City Council on April 18, 2019, and became law on May 20, 2019. These new ordinances, known as Local Laws 92 and 94 of 2019, passed as part of a broad package of laws known as the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, whose goal is reduction of building carbon emissions. Because the sustainable roof requirements are effective now, plans submitted to the Department of Buildings for approval must include plans for sustainable roofs.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

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.

June 28, 2016 by Richard P. Dyer

No-Prejudice Standard For Application Of Public Construction Contract Notices Now Required by New York

New York’s State Legislature has just passed a bill that would require a no-prejudice standard be applied in determining the application of notice provisions in public construction contracts. [1]

The bill amended current statutes [2] so as to require that unless the public owner can show they have suffered material prejudice as a result of a contractor’s (or/and subcontractor’s) failure to provide timely notice, rights are not barred. If the required notice is received more than 180 days after the time required under the contract, the burden to establish no-prejudice shifts to the contractor/subcontractor.

The Legislature Memo prepared to explain and support the bill referred to current notice provisions as one-sided and unfair “gotcha” provisions. The Memo further contended that some public owners were getting “free work” when contractors or subcontractors are barred from pursuing claims due to non-compliant notices.

Another significant element of the bill appears in the definitional section where it is provided that a “public owner’s actual knowledge of the events in question shall preclude a claim of material prejudice due to any lack of notice.” Some city and state contracts often specifically provide that actual knowledge cannot relieve contractors of the strict requirements of the notice provisions.

The bill will not become effective, however, until 180 days after it is signed by the Governor and becomes law and then only as to contracts awarded after that date.
The text of the bill is here .

1. The bill is A10136 and S6906 which passed on June 18, 2016.
2. The bill amends the Public Authorities Law, the General Municipal Law, the Public Service Law and the State Finance Law.