GC v. Goshow Architects, L.L.P., Defendant. (2026)

On September 28, 2020, plaintiff, GC Eng Engineering Associates, P.C., commenced this action against defendant, Goshow Architects, L.L.P., an architectural firm. Defendant retained plaintiff to perform engineering work on its behalf. Plaintiff sought to recover $220,000 based on engineering services for nine projects. (NYSCEF No. 1.)

On November 11, 2020, defendant filed an answer with counterclaims. Defendant denied any liability and counterclaimed that plaintiff failed properly to perform and finish all projects alleged in the complaint. (NYSCEF No. 4.)

On September 22, 2022, this court (Bluth, J.), granted defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's complaint and its reply to defendant's counterclaims and referred the matter for an inquest on damages. (NYSCEF No. 70.)

An inquest was held before the undersigned on the counterclaims on April 15, April 22, and May 21, 2025. The inquest concerned only the amount of damages to which defendant/counterclaimant is entitled on its counterclaims.

DISCUSSION

At the damages inquest, only one witness testified: the managing partner of Goshow Architects, Nancy Goshow. She testified that plaintiff left multiple projects unfinished and that defendant had to hire replacement engineers to finish the projects. The court finds that much, but not all, of Goshow's testimony was corroborated by invoices and vendor records.

Defendant retained plaintiff to render engineering services on multiple projects in connection with a contract between defendant and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York. Defendant retained plaintiff for a project to renovate a classroom at a Hostos Community College ("Hostos") at 475 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York ("Hostos Building 3A Classroom Project"). Plaintiff also was retained to work on a project to install an emergency generator in the basement of a Hostos building at 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York ("Hostos Emergency Generator Project"), and another project for the renovation of the third floor of a Hostos Building located at 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York ("Hostos Building B 3rd Floor Project").

Defendant retained plaintiff to perform engineering services in a project involving the Performing Arts Center at Queensborough Community College at 222-05 56th Ave, Bayside, New York ("QCC ADA Project"), and to render engineering services in a project related to Queensborough Community College's cafeteria ("QCC Cafeteria Project").

Defendant also retained plaintiff to perform engineering services in connection with a project at the H-Quad residential dorm at Stony Brook University ("Stony Brook H-Quad Project").

Defendant further retained plaintiff to perform engineering services for a project at the Church of the Holy Apostles ("Holy Apostles Project") at 269 9th Avenue, New York, New York.

Defendant additionally retained plaintiff to render engineering services in a project in connection with the renovation of a residential building located at 645 East 9th Street, New York, New York ("East 9th Street Project"), and a project to perform engineering services in connection with the construction of a building located at 353 East 10th Street, New York, New York ("East 10th Street Project").

The Hostos Projects

Goshow testified that plaintiff did not finish the three Dormitory Authority projects involving Hostos (the subjects of defendant's first, second, and third counterclaims). She testified that as a result, defendant retained another engineering firm, Urban Engineer of New York, D.P.C. ("Urban Engineers"), to finish the projects. (Defendant's exhibit A at 3-5.)

According to Goshow's testimony and defendant's vendor check register, defendant paid plaintiff $214,358.43. (Defendant's exhibit O; trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 118-122.) Based on defendant's vendor check register (defendant's exhibit P-2) and Goshow's testimony (trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 124), defendant paid $86,096.36 to Urban Engineers to finish all three projects.

Plaintiff suggested through cross-examination that based on the evidence defendant provided (defendant's exhibit B, defendant's exhibit L, and defendant's exhibit N), it is difficult to delimit the scope of the work done by Urban Engineers. (Trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 87-88, 96.) The court finds it unclear whether this work was done because of plaintiff's breach or because the Dormitory Authority assigned additional work to defendant. Goshow testified that the contracts between defendant and Urban Engineers did not delimit the entire scope of the work. She testified that it is difficult to anticipate the scope of work until the project is ongoing. But a description of the work that was needed is identified in a project amendment and defendant did not offer to move into evidence a project amendment that would corroborate her testimony. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 24-28.) Goshow also testified that defendant paid certain amounts to Urban Engineers. (Trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 124.) Goshow later changed her testimony and claimed that Urban Engineers payments were made with money paid by the Dormitory Authority. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 20-21.)

The court finds that Goshow's testimony is not reliable about whether the Dormitory Authority or defendant had to pay for the work done by Urban Engineers. She contradicted herself on this point during the inquest. (Trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 124; trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 20-21.) Moreover, a project amendment, in which the scope of Urban Engineer's work would be defined, is not in the record.

This court awards $214,358.43 for the first, second, and third counterclaims in restitution of amounts paid to plaintiff for projects not completed. Because defendant did not prove that the payments to Urban Engineers represented unreimbursed, out-of-pocket costs attributable to plaintiff's breach, the court declines to award the additional $86,096.36 paid to Urban Engineers.

Queensborough Community College projects

Goshow testified that plaintiff failed to complete the projects at Queensborough Community College and that defendant had to hire a replacement engineer to recalculate and redesign both the QCC ADA Project (fourth counterclaim) and the QCC Cafeteria Project (fifth counterclaim). Defendant hired Forward Engineering North America L.L.C. ("Forward Engineering") and MEY Associates, L.L.C. ("MEY Associates"), to finish these projects.

According to Goshow's testimony and defendant's vendor check register, defendant paid plaintiff $70,285.78 (trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 118-122; defendant's exhibit O) and paid $41,606.18 to the replacement engineers. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 128-130; defendant's exhibit Q-2.)

Plaintiff suggested on cross-examination that project amendment #01 to the agreement between defendant and Forward Engineering (defendant's exhibit K at 1) shows payments in relation to the QCC Cafeteria Project approved by the Dormitory Authority for $12,138; these payments are also found in defendant's vendor check register, where all payments should be reflected (defendant's exhibit Q-2 at 1). That these payments are reflected in defendant's vendor check register shows that the Dormitory Authority covered at least some portion of the money paid to Forward Engineering for the QCC Cafeteria Project. The project amendment was issued on August 17, 2023, almost two years after defendant sent the letter of termination to plaintiff. That raises the possibility that the Dormitory Authority gave more work to defendant that is unrelated to plaintiff's breach. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 70.)

Plaintiff also suggested on cross-examination that the master agreements between defendant and the Dormitory Authority did not mention Forward Engineering or were in any way project specific. (Trial transcript Apr. 15, 2025, at 50-51.)

On cross-examination, plaintiff asked Goshow whether updating the plumbing and sprinkler drawing in the QCC ADA Project to the 2020 Energy Conservation Code (19 NYCRR 1240.3) was part of the work MEY Associates did. Goshow testified that MEY Associates' job was to finish the drawings. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 62.)

On cross-examination, Goshow was shown a proposal for engineering services from May 11, 2021. The proposal stated that MEY Associates' job is to prepare in strict conformance to the latest applicable codes addressing plumbing, sprinkler/fire protection plans, and construction-support activity. Goshow stated that the proposal was an unsigned document and that she did not think any proposal was signed between MEY Associates and defendant. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 62-63.)

The court finds that defendant was able to prove how much money was paid to plaintiff for both the QCC ADA and the QCC Cafeteria Projects. The court also finds that Goshow's testimony is not sufficiently corroborated in relation to the money paid to the replacement engineers. Goshow did not establish the scope of the work. The court is uncertain about what the result of plaintiff's breach was. Moreover, it is not clear whether the Dormitory Authority assumed the totality of the replacement engineers' payments; and according to defendant's exhibit K, at least some of the payments to Forward Engineering were covered by the Dormitory Authority. The court finds that defendant did not prove whether the money paid both to Forward Engineering and MEY Associates was for work done because of plaintiff's breach.

This court thus awards defendant $70,285.78 under the fourth and fifth counterclaims in restitution of amounts paid to plaintiff for projects not completed. Because defendant did not prove additional compensable damages beyond the amounts paid to plaintiff, the court does not award the $41,606.18 paid to the replacement engineers.

Stony Brook H-Quad Project

Goshow testified that plaintiff failed to complete the Stony Brook H-Quad Project (sixth counterclaim). Goshow further testified that defendant had to reassume and finish the project. Defendant did not hire a replacement engineer. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 28-29.)

On cross-examination, Goshow was asked what out-of-pocket expenses defendant had incurred on the project. She answered that she did not recall. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 29.) Goshow also testified that defendant did not hire a replacement engineer to finish the project. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 28-29.)

The record shows that defendant paid plaintiff $28,380 for the project. (Defendant's exhibit O.) Given that no replacement engineer was hired and that Goshow did not testify about any other expense beyond what defendant paid plaintiff, defendant did not prove additional damages beyond the amounts paid.

The court awards defendant $28,380 on the sixth counterclaim in restitution for the project not completed.

Holy Apostles Project

Goshow testified that plaintiff failed to complete the Holy Apostles Project (seventh counterclaim).

According to Goshow, defendant made a business decision not to move forward with the project after plaintiff's breach and therefore did not hire a replacement engineer. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 32.) Goshow also stated that she could not recall whether defendant incurred any other expenses. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 29.)

Based on Goshow's testimony and defendant's vendor check register (defendant's exhibit O at 3, 6), defendant paid plaintiff $4,800 for the project.

The court awards defendant $4,800 on the seventh counterclaim in restitution for the project not completed.

The East 9th Street and East 10th Street Projects

Goshow testified that plaintiff failed to complete both the East 9th Street Project (eighth counterclaim) and the East 10th Street Project (ninth counterclaim). Accordingly, defendant had to hire a replacement engineer to finish the projects. Defendant hired Startech Engineering P.C. ("Startech Engineering").

According to Goshow's testimony and defendant's vendor check register, plaintiff received $41,213.46. (Defendant's exhibit O at 2-4.) Moreover, according to defendant's vendor check register (defendant's exhibit R-2), Startech Engineering received $47,830 to finish both projects.

Plaintiff suggested on cross-examination that a lack of documentation exists about the payments made from the project owner to defendant. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 16.)

Goshow testified that payments of $4,160 and $5,920 registered on defendant's vendor check register (defendant's exhibit R-2) were made by the project owner and were not sought by defendant. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 17-18.)

On cross-examination, plaintiff asked Goshow whether Goshow Architects had asked the project owner for compensation for plaintiff's breach. Goshow said that Goshow Architects had asked for compensation, but the project owner said no and told the firm that it would have to pay for the cost to finish the project. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 38-40.) The court finds, according to Goshow's testimony, that defendant had to pay for the replacement engineer's work to finish both projects.

On cross-examination, plaintiff asked Goshow how much money Goshow Architects had spent on both the East 9th Street and East 10th Street Projects. Goshow answered that her affidavit showed how much it was. (Trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 36.) The record shows that defendant paid Startech Engineering $47,830 and from that sum only $37,750 is being sought by defendant. The $37,750 sought by defendant is corroborated both by Goshow's testimony and the record. (Trial transcript Apr. 22, 2025, at 17-18; defendant's exhibit R-2.)

The record also shows two contracts between defendant and Startech Engineering for both the East 9th Street and East 10th Street Projects. (Defendant's exhibit G and defendant's exhibit F.) Both contracts delimit the scope and type of work performed. The court finds that defendant corroborated that the work done in both projects by the replacement engineer was the result of plaintiff's breach.

According to Goshow, defendant spent more money because of the internal cost defendant spent to help Startech Engineering finish the project (trial transcript May 21, 2025, at 42-43); but no invoices or registration of these internal costs were submitted into evidence. Given that no evidence of additional cost was submitted, the court finds that Goshow did not corroborate her testimony as to the internal costs defendant spent.

The record shows how much defendant paid plaintiff for the unfinished projects. The court therefore awards defendant $41,213.46 in restitution on the eighth and ninth counterclaims. The court finds that defendant proved the scope of work done by Startech Engineering and how much it was paid to finish both projects because of plaintiff's breach. The court awards defendant $37,750 in restitution for the money paid to Startech Engineering to finish both projects. (Defendant's exhibit R-2.)

Attorney fees

Defendant seeks attorney fees. Defendant may file a motion on notice within 30 days of entry of this order demonstrating its entitlement to attorney fees and the amount sought.

Interest

Defendant may also move on notice within 30 days of entry for a determination of the date from which interest shall be calculated.

Transcript costs

Because plaintiff failed to pay its share of the inquest transcript costs, the court orders that plaintiff must pay defendant an additional $1,998.00, representing half of the stenographic fees that defendant paid for the transcripts.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that following trial, defendant Goshow Architects, L.L.P., is awarded a money judgment on its counterclaims of $398,785.67 against plaintiff GC Eng Engineering Associates, P.C., as follows:

(i) $214,358.43 on the first, second, and third counterclaims (Hostos Projects);

(ii) $70,285.78 on the fourth and fifth counterclaims (Queensborough Community College Projects);

(iii) $28,380.00 on the sixth counterclaim (Stony Brook H-Quad Project);

(iv) $4,800.00 on the seventh counterclaim (Holy Apostles Project);

(v) $41,213.46 on the eighth and ninth counterclaims in restitution of amounts paid to plaintiff;

(vi) $37,750.00 on the eighth and ninth counterclaims for payments made to Startech Engineering, P.C.; and

(vii) $1,998.00 for plaintiff's share of the cost of the trial transcripts;

and it is further

ORDERED that defendant may enter a supplemental judgment for the amount to which it is entitled in interest on its counterclaim damages, and for the amount of defendant's reasonable attorney fees, with those amounts to be determined by motion made on notice within 30 days of entry of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on plaintiff and on the office of the County Clerk using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATE 3/6/2026

Gerald Lebovits, J.