{"id":778,"date":"2025-12-02T11:50:33","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T15:50:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=778"},"modified":"2025-12-02T11:50:34","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T15:50:34","slug":"appellate-court-reinforces-delay-clause-in-construction-subcontract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2025\/12\/02\/appellate-court-reinforces-delay-clause-in-construction-subcontract\/","title":{"rendered":"Appellate Court Reinforces Delay Clause in Construction Subcontract"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The First Department\u2019s recent decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nycourts.gov\/courts\/AD1\/calendar\/AppsMots\/2025\/apps\/20250930\/2024-06264.pdf\"><em>Henick\u2013Lane, LLC v. Stellar Management Group, Inc<\/em>.<\/a> reaffirms New York\u2019s strong policy of enforcing no-damages-for-delay clauses. Henick\u2013Lane sought compensation for eight change orders tied to delays, but the subcontract&#8217;s no-damages-for-delay clause limited remedies to extensions of time. The court held that the claims were barred, rejecting arguments that they constituted \u201cextra work\u201d or that recognized exceptions applied. It found that evidence of poor planning was insufficient to establish bad faith, that the delays were expressly contemplated by the subcontract, and that the defendants\u2019 failure to provide a crane did not amount to breach of a fundamental obligation. The court also held that the prevention doctrine\u2014which bars a party from relying on a condition precedent it has itself prevented\u2014was inapplicable because a no-damages-for-delay clause is exculpatory rather than a condition precedent. The decision illustrates how New York courts apply no-damages-for-delay provisions according to their plain terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The First Department\u2019s recent decision in Henick\u2013Lane, LLC v. Stellar Management Group, Inc. reaffirms New York\u2019s strong policy of enforcing no-damages-for-delay clauses. Henick\u2013Lane sought compensation for eight change orders tied to delays, but the subcontract&#8217;s no-damages-for-delay clause limited remedies to extensions of time. The court held that the claims were barred, rejecting arguments that they &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2025\/12\/02\/appellate-court-reinforces-delay-clause-in-construction-subcontract\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Appellate Court Reinforces Delay Clause in Construction Subcontract&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":321,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[88,593,874,873],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-construction-law","tag-jose-a-aquino","tag-no-damages-for-delay-2","tag-prevention-doctrine"],"authors":[{"term_id":699,"user_id":66,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jaaquino","display_name":"Jose A. Aquino","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2014\/07\/aquinojose-125x150.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Aquino","first_name":"Jose A.","job_title":"","user_url":"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/joseaaquino.html","description":"<a href=\"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/joseaaquino.html\">Read Jose's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/778\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=778"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}