construction law – Duane Morris Construction Law

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).

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.

April 15, 2015 by Duane Morris

Calculating Lost Labor Productivity: Is There a Better Way?

The calculation of lost labor productivity, also termed labor inefficiencies, is one of the most significant elements of damages in a construction dispute and one of the most controversial. If these damages are proven, the monetary value claim can be a considerable amount. This is far from surprising seeing as labor costs can make up to 30 to 50% of overall project costs and if these projects lose money, the unanticipated labor costs result from lesser unexpected productivity. Lost labor productivity has become controversial since owners and general contractors are skeptical of the methods in curating these calculations can be considered questionable, speculative, and illusory. The article will further define how lost labor productivity claims developed; the interplay of Daubert in the pursuit of, and defense against, such claims; and recent federal and state case law addressing loss productivity.

The full article, written by Duane Morris partner Daniel E. Toomey and Duane Morris associate Joshua S. Marks, along with Dr. Tong Zhao, P.E. and J. Mark Dungan of Delta Consulting Group, Inc., is available on the Duane Morris LLP website, courtesy of The Construction Lawyer.

January 9, 2015February 2, 2015 by Jose A. Aquino

Updates to OSHA’s Recordkeeping Rule

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Recordkeeping regulation (29 CFR 1904) covered employers are required to prepare and maintain records of serious occupational injuries and illnesses. Revisions to the OSHA reporting requirements went into effect on January 1, 2015. The revised rule expands the list of severe work-related injuries that all covered employers must report to OSHA.

Employers are now required to contact OSHA within 24 hours following any in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, or loss of an eye. Additionally, employers are now required to notify OSHA of work related fatalities within eight hours following a fatality. Previously, an employer was not required to report a single hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye, as only work-related fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations of three or more employees were required to be reported.

Employers can provide notice to OSHA of an occurrence by either: 1) calling the nearest local OSHA office during normal business hours; 2) calling OSHA’s free and confidential number at 1-800-321-OSHA (6742); or 3) reporting the occurrence electronically using the new online reporting form that is expected to available in mid-January.

In addition to the new reporting requirements, OSHA updated the list of industries that are exempt from the requirement to routinely keep OSHA injury and illness records. The new list of exempt industries is based on the North American Industry Classification System and injury and illness data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note that the new rule maintains the exemption for any employer with ten or fewer employees, regardless of their industry classification, from the requirement to routinely keep records.

The reporting requirement rule was revised to allow OSHA to focus its efforts more effectively to prevent fatalities and serious work-related injuries and illnesses. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Dr. David Michaels, summed up the purpose of the new rule: “OSHA will now receive crucial reports of fatalities and severe work-related injuries and illnesses that will significantly enhance the agency’s ability to target our resources to save lives and prevent further injury and illness. This new data will enable the agency to identify the workplaces where workers are at the greatest risk and target our compliance assistance and enforcement resources accordingly.”

For more information about the new rule, visit OSHA’s website.

February 18, 2014July 29, 2014 by Jose A. Aquino

Itemization of Mechanic’s Lien Not Necessary Where Construction Contract Apprised Owner of Lienor’s Claim

New York Lien Law § 38 states that the holder of a mechanic’s lien “shall, on demand in writing, deliver to the owner or contractor making such demand a statement in writing which shall set forth the items of labor and/or material and the value thereof which make up the amount for which he [or she] claims a lien, and which shall also set forth the terms of the contract under which such items were furnished.” In Associated Building Services Inc. v Pentecostal Faith Church, 112 A.D.3d 1130, 976 N.Y.S.2d 699 (3rd Dept. 2013), the Court held that a lienor is not always required to provide an itemization of labor and materials furnished to substantiate its mechanic’s lien.

Continue reading “Itemization of Mechanic’s Lien Not Necessary Where Construction Contract Apprised Owner of Lienor’s Claim”