Opinion
March 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).
The City's motion for summary judgment was properly granted since plaintiff ignored the contract's provisions (i) for notification to the City that work being directed by the City as contract work was, in plaintiff's view, extra work entitling it to additional compensation and (ii) for failure to document the cost of this disputed work with contemporaneous records showing the labor and material costs attributable thereto (Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 727).
It is plaintiff's reliance on the purported conversations, meetings, and cost estimates to substantiate its claim for additional compensation which the contract language specifically prevents (see, Naclerio Contr. Co. v Environmental Protection Admin., 113 A.D.2d 707) and which may not be circumvented by quantum meruit (see, Buckley Co. v City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, 936, lv dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 742).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.