{"id":799,"date":"2026-03-10T11:46:07","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T15:46:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=799"},"modified":"2026-03-10T11:46:08","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T15:46:08","slug":"appellate-court-finds-oral-assurances-sufficient-to-keep-contractors-claims-alive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2026\/03\/10\/appellate-court-finds-oral-assurances-sufficient-to-keep-contractors-claims-alive\/","title":{"rendered":"Appellate Court Finds Oral Assurances Sufficient to Keep Contractor\u2019s Claims Alive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Best Work Holdings (New York), LLC v. Ma<\/a><\/em>, a recent decision from the New York Appellate Division, First Department, the court examines how promissory\u2011estoppel and unjust\u2011enrichment claims are evaluated when construction work is performed without a written contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff building owner accused defendants of participating in a fraudulent contracting scheme. Defendant Li responded with counterclaims, asserting that he performed legitimate preparation work for the building\u2019s renovation because he was told he would be reimbursed. Li alleged that the head of asset management for the owner\u2019s parent company promised him that \u201cif Li performed preparation work\u2026 he would be reimbursed the costs for material, labor, equipment, and services.\u201d Li also claimed that he relied on this assurance because of his prior working relationship with the project manager, noting that he had previously managed projects \u201cwithout a written contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court held that these allegations were enough to state a claim for promissory estoppel. At the pleading stage, the question is not whether Li will ultimately prove his reliance was reasonable, but whether the allegations, taken as true, are plausible. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of reliance \u201cis an issue for the trier of fact\u201d and that Li is entitled to favorable inferences because his reliance was not \u201cpatently unreasonable on its face.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also reinstated Li\u2019s unjust enrichment claim. Li alleged that he spent $200,000 on preparation work and that the building owner benefited from that work without paying for it. The court found these allegations sufficient, explaining that Li claimed the owner \u201cwas enriched by Li\u2019s preparation work\u201d and that it would be \u201cagainst equity and good conscience\u201d for the owner to retain that benefit without payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the counterclaims lacked detail, the court concluded that they were sufficiently specific to withstand a motion to dismiss. The decision underscores that quasi\u2011contract claims may proceed even without a formal agreement when a contractor alleges a pattern of similar prior dealings and significant out\u2011of\u2011pocket expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Best Work Holdings (New York), LLC v. Ma, a recent decision from the New York Appellate Division, First Department, the court examines how promissory\u2011estoppel and unjust\u2011enrichment claims are evaluated when construction work is performed without a written contract. Plaintiff building owner accused defendants of participating in a fraudulent contracting scheme. Defendant Li responded with … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Appellate Court Finds Oral Assurances Sufficient to Keep Contractor\u2019s Claims Alive”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":221,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[88,593,887,886,535],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-construction-law","tag-jose-a-aquino","tag-promissory-estoppel","tag-quasi-contract","tag-unjust-enrichment"],"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","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799","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=799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=799"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}