Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
A.R. MACK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL SQUARE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff, the masonry contractor on a construction project for defendant school district, commenced this action to recover damages it allegedly incurred when it was required to complete its performance of the contract under “materially changed conditions” created by defendant and its agents. Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The damages sought by plaintiff are encompassed within the no-damage-for-delay exculpatory clauses in article 8 of the parties' contract. “Such clauses have been found valid, and preclude recovery of damages resulting from a broad range of reasonable and unreasonable conduct, where, as here, the conduct was specifically contemplated by the parties when they entered into the agreement” (North Star Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 214, 214-215, 611 N.Y.S.2d 11, citing Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 297, 305, 502 N.Y.S.2d 681, 493 N.E.2d 905). Plaintiff may not avoid the contractual bar to such damages on the ground that the delays resulted from defendant's alleged gross negligence or willful misconduct. The record contains no evidence of willful misconduct or “conduct by [defendant] so grossly negligent as to constitute a predicate for a delay damage claim in the face of the contract's broad exculpatory clause” (Buckley & Co. v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, 934, 505 N.Y.S.2d 140, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 742, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 504 N.E.2d 699, lv. dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 742, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 504 N.E.2d 699).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 27, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)