Roy C. Knapp Sons, Inc. v. County of Putnam

2 Citing cases

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

    242 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    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.

  2. Namasco Corp. v. N. Y. Hotel Trade Coun.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 31741 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

    The Museum's reliance on MRW Constr. Co. v City of New York ( 223 AD2d 473 [1st Dept], lv denied 88 NY2d 803) is unavailing for the same reason. That case, like the others mentioned above, involved a public contract with nearly identical notice and documentation requirements (id. at 473; see also Roy C. Knapp Sons, Inc. v County of Putnam, 212 AD2d 770, 771 [2nd Dept 1995] [public contract with similar notice of claim requirements]). Thus, the branch of the Museum's motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Pecker's claims for failure to comply with the Contract's notice requirement