From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S.N. Tannor, Inc. v. A.F.C. Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 2000
276 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

noting that the "actions by [defendant] alleged to have caused the complained of delays and [to have] necessitated extra work amounted to no more than inept administration and, as such, fall within the subcontract's exculpatory provisions"

Summary of this case from Travelers Casualty Surety Company v. Dasny

Opinion

October 19, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 22, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of defendant A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Andrew L. Crabtree, for plaintiff-appellant.

Vincent J. Torna, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin, Saxe, JJ.


Plaintiff S.N. Tannor, Inc., a subcontractor on a public works construction project for which defendant A.F.C. Enterprises was the general contractor, sues to recover damages for extra work and delays allegedly occasioned by the conduct of A.F.C. However, the subcontract between S.N. Tannor and A.F.C. contained "no-damage-for-delay" provisions and A.F.C. is entitled to the protection of those provisions since its delays were not (1) the product of willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct; (2) uncontemplated; (3) so unreasonable as to constitute an intentional abandonment of the contract; and (4) the result of A.F.C.'s breach of a fundamental obligation of the contract (see,Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 297, 309). As the motion court found, the actions by A.F.C. alleged to have caused the complained of delays and necessitated extra work amounted to no more than inept administration and, as such, fall within the subcontract's exculpatory provisions (see, Martin Mechanical Corp. v. P.J. Carlin Constr. Co., 132 A.D.2d 688; Buckley Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

S.N. Tannor, Inc. v. A.F.C. Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 19, 2000
276 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

noting that the "actions by [defendant] alleged to have caused the complained of delays and [to have] necessitated extra work amounted to no more than inept administration and, as such, fall within the subcontract's exculpatory provisions"

Summary of this case from Travelers Casualty Surety Company v. Dasny
Case details for

S.N. Tannor, Inc. v. A.F.C. Enterprises

Case Details

Full title:S.N. TANNOR, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. A.F.C. ENTERPRISES, INC., ET…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 273

Citing Cases

Premier-New York v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp.

For example, when an owner uses multiple co-prime contractors to construct a project, the risk of poor…

Travelers Casualty Surety Company v. Dasny

Div. 1st Dep't 2003) ("Bac-Jat") (affirming grant of summary judgment where plaintiff's claim was "tantamount…