Opinion
12285 Index No. 651209/16 Case No. 2019-5927
11-05-2020
FEDERATED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 56 LEONARD STREET, LLC, et al., Defendants, Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc., Defendant–Respondent.
Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP, Woodbury (Andrew L. Richards of counsel), for appellant. Quinn McCabe LLP, New York (Jonathan H. Krukas of counsel), for respondent.
Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP, Woodbury (Andrew L. Richards of counsel), for appellant.
Quinn McCabe LLP, New York (Jonathan H. Krukas of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered July 8, 2019, which (1) granted the motion of defendant Lendlease (US) Construction LMB Inc. to dismiss the fifth cause of action, for delay damages, and (2) denied plaintiff's request for leave to file a second amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The parties' contract contained a no-damages-for-delay provision. Such provisions are valid and serve to bar claims for delay damages unless a party can successfully invoke one of the exceptions set forth in Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v. City of New York , 67 N.Y.2d 297, 309, 502 N.Y.S.2d 681, 493 N.E.2d 905 (1986). Plaintiffs seeking to invoke one of the Corinno Civetta exceptions face a "heavy burden" ( LoDuca Assoc., Inc. v. PMS Constr. Mgt. Corp., 91 A.D.3d 485, 485–486, 936 N.Y.S.2d 192 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Here, while plaintiff sets forth allegations related to the purported causes for delays that are allegedly attributed to defendant, it has not set forth factual allegations showing that any of the Corinno Civetta exceptions apply ( WDF Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 156 A.D.3d 530, 65 N.Y.S.3d 448 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
The IAS court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint ( Velarde v. City of New York, 149 A.D.3d 457, 51 N.Y.S.3d 73 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Plaintiff did not submit a proposed amendment in connection with its motion ( CPLR 3025(b) ; Mendoza v. Akerman Senterfitt LLP, 128 A.D.3d 480, 483, 10 N.Y.S.3d 18 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Further, it is clear that any attempt to replead by plaintiff would have been futile ( Eighth Ave. Garage Corp. v. H.K.L. Realty Corp., 60 A.D.3d 404, 405, 875 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept. 2009], lv dismissed 12 N.Y.3d 880, 883 N.Y.S.2d 174, 910 N.E.2d 1003 [2009] ).