From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kleinberg Elec., Inc. v. E-J Elec. Installation Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 7, 2013
111 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-7

KLEINBERG ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. E–J ELECTRIC INSTALLATION CO., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Goulston & Storrs, P.C., Boston, MA (Derek B. Domain of the bar of the State of Massachusetts, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Randy J. Heller of counsel), for respondents.



Goulston & Storrs, P.C., Boston, MA (Derek B. Domain of the bar of the State of Massachusetts, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Randy J. Heller of counsel), for respondents.
SWEENY, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered November 8, 2012, after a nonjury trial, awarding defendants damages, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered August 25, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted judgment in defendants' favor on their counterclaim, and an order, same court and Justice, entered October 2, 2012, which found that defendants were entitled to $570,935.00 for overpayment damages and $1,165,263.00 for cost-to-complete work damages, for a total sum of $1,736,198.00 plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award of $570,935 for overpayment damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants are entitled to cost-to-complete damages because plaintiff materially breached and abandoned the subcontract, and waived any right to notice of termination or an opportunity to cure. The subcontract explicitly provides that time is of the essence, that plaintiff's delay or failure to meet scheduling requirements warrants termination, and that plaintiff must perform work even if the parties dispute that work's characterization, yet plaintiff repeatedly failed to timely perform and complete work, despite defendant E–J Electric Installation Co.'s repeated demands ( see Engels v. French, 274 A.D.2d 544, 711 N.Y.S.2d 487 [2d Dept.2000] ). Among other material breaches, plaintiff repudiated the subcontract by abandoning the work site when only 73.49% of plaintiff's work was complete ( see Norcon Power Partners v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 458, 462–463, 682 N.Y.S.2d 664, 705 N.E.2d 656 [1998];General Supply & Constr. Co. v. Goelet, 241 N.Y. 28, 34, 148 N.E. 778 [1925];Plato Gen. Constr. Corp./EMCO Tech Constr. Corp., JV, LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 89 A.D.3d 819, 824, 932 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2d Dept.2011], lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 803, 946 N.Y.S.2d 106, 969 N.E.2d 223 [2012];Remodeling Constr. Servs. v. Minter, 78 A.D.3d 1677, 1678, 913 N.Y.S.2d 446 [4th Dept.2010] ). Accordingly, plaintiff waived any right to notice of termination ( see J. Petrocelli Constr., Inc. v. Realm Elec. Contrs., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 444, 446, 790 N.Y.S.2d 197 [2d Dept.2005]; Special Situations Fund III v. Versus Tech., 227 A.D.2d 321, 642 N.Y.S.2d 894 [1st Dept.1996], lv. denied88 N.Y.2d 815, 651 N.Y.S.2d 16, 673 N.E.2d 1243 [1996];Sunshine Steak, Salad & Seafood v. W.I.M. Realty, 135 A.D.2d 891, 892–893, 522 N.Y.S.2d 292 [3d Dept.1987] ).

It is well-settled that if a subcontractor breaches before completing performance, the contractor is entitled to recover reliance, or cost-to-complete damagesfrom the subcontractor ( see New Era Homes Corp. v. Forster, 299 N.Y. 303, 306, 86 N.E.2d 757 [1949];Hydraulitall, Inc. v. Jones Inlet Mar., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 1087, 1089, 899 N.Y.S.2d 266 [2d Dept.2010]; Feldin v. Doty, 45 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 848 N.Y.S.2d 374 [3d Dept.2007]; F. Garofalo Elec. Co. v. New York Univ., 300 A.D.2d 186, 189–190, 754 N.Y.S.2d 227 [1st Dept.2002]; Citnalta Constr. Corp. v. Caristo Assoc. Elec. Contrs., 244 A.D.2d 252, 253, 664 N.Y.S.2d 438 [1st Dept.1997] ). Supreme Court correctly found that defendants were entitled to recover cost-to-complete damages from plaintiff, but, as defendants concede, awarding them overpayment damages as well constituted an impermissible, and unsolicited, double recovery.

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Kleinberg Elec., Inc. v. E-J Elec. Installation Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 7, 2013
111 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Kleinberg Elec., Inc. v. E-J Elec. Installation Co.

Case Details

Full title:KLEINBERG ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. E–J ELECTRIC…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 7, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
111 A.D.3d 410
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7256

Citing Cases

McCormack Contracting, Inc. v. Triton Constr. Co.

Both parties concede that the threshold legal issue in this contract action is whether Triton's termination…

Hudson Valley Window Cleaning, Inc. v. Rotron Inc.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendant is correct that the agreement is ambiguous as to whether the…