From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin Iron Const. Corp. v. E.W. Howell Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 1997
242 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 4, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.). the respondents' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, fourth, and tenth causes of action in the complaint.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly awarded the defendants partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, and tenth causes of action seeking additional compensation for extra work performed on the Public School No. 7 project in Elmhurst, Queens. The defendants established that the releases signed by the plaintiff barred any claims for additional work occurring prior to September 30, 1993 ( see, E.M. Substructures v. City of New York, 73 A.D.2d 608; Mars Assocs. v City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 839, affd 53 N.Y.2d 627). The defendants further established that the plaintiff had not received written authorizations for any additional work it allegedly performed subsequent to September 30, 1993 ( see, Knapp Sons v. County of Putnam, 212 A.D.2d 770; Smith Elec. Contrs. v. City of New York, 181 A.D.2d 542). Since the contract expressly provided that extra work had to be authorized in writing, and the plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence that the defendants waived that requirement ( see, Sturdy Concrete Corp. v. NAB Constr. Corp., 65 A.D.2d 262; cf., Davis Acoustical Corp. v. National Sur. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 624), the plaintiff may not recover for alleged extra work it claims to have performed pursuant to the contract, subsequent to September 30, 1993. Finally, to the extent that the plaintiff claims that it performed additional work subsequent to September 30, 1993, pursuant to a separate implied oral contract which did not require prior written authorization as a condition precedent to payment, the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any such agreement and thus, there can be no recovery thereunder.

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin Iron Const. Corp. v. E.W. Howell Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 1997
242 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Martin Iron Const. Corp. v. E.W. Howell Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN IRON CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v. E.W. HOWELL CO., INC., et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 4, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 746

Citing Cases

G. Rama Construction Enterprises, Inc. v. 80-82 Guernsey Street Associates, LLC

The Supreme Court also properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. The defendants…

Pizzarotti IBC, LLC v. A.L. One Constr.

In the context of construction-related disputes, contractual releases operate to bar any claims that may…