Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice provisions contained in article 24 of the contract entitled the defendant to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In this construction contract to erect a structure known as the Putnam County Transit Facility, article 24 set forth the procedures for the resolution of controversies over disputed work. Article 24 obligated the plaintiff to provide detailed, itemized notice regarding its claims for additional compensation. When the plaintiff allegedly encountered additional rock which it had to excavate, it did not provide the defendant with the detailed notice required by article 24. By failing to provide the contractually required notice within the time parameters set forth in article 24, the plaintiff breached a condition precedent to maintaining this claim for extra work (see, Ritangela Constr. Corp. v. State of New York, 183 A.D.2d 817; Matter of Board of Educ. v. Hatzel Buehler, 156 A.D.2d 684; see also, Provo v. City of Syracuse, 262 N.Y. 127; O'Brien v. Mayor of City of N.Y. 139 N.Y. 543).
Furthermore, the plaintiff's contention that article 24 is not applicable to disputes involving excavation of additional rock is unsupported by the record and is without merit. Article 24 is the contract provision which covers claims for additional compensation. The plaintiff now argues that article 24 is irrelevant to claims involving excavation of additional rock because the contract included a provision to determine compensation for the excavation of additional rock. While article 23 may provide for additional compensation for removal of extra rock at a price to be determined with reference to the set unit price of $210 per cubic yard, it is article 24 which sets forth the relevant provisions regarding the method to be used by the plaintiff in submitting its claims for additional compensation. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy the relevant notice requirements of article 24, the court properly awarded judgment to the defendant as a matter of law. Moreover, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of article 24, the court properly denied its cross-motion to amend its complaint to plead compliance therewith (see, Staines v Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 A.D.2d 718).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.