Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

HEALY/YONKERS/ATLAS–GEST, etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.

Decided: February 18, 1999

WILLIAMS, J.P., TOM, ANDRIAS and SAXE, JJ. Alvin Goldstein, for plaintiffs-appellants. Fay Ng, for defendant-respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel–Jacob, J.), entered June 16, 1998, which, in an action for breach of a public improvement contract, granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' first cause of action insofar as it seeks delay damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim for delay damages was properly granted, plaintiffs conceding that they failed to strictly comply with the damage documentation requirement of article XIII of the contract (see, MRW Constr. Co. v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 473, 636 N.Y.S.2d 344, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 803, 645 N.Y.S.2d 445, 668 N.E.2d 416;  Lasker–Goldman Corp. v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 153, 633 N.Y.S.2d 771, lv. dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 1055, 644 N.Y.S.2d 147, 666 N.E.2d 1061).   The absence of the word “strictly” as a modifier of the mandatory notice requirements of the contract does not require a different result (see, American Standard v. New York City Tr. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 494, 562 N.Y.S.2d 165, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 860, 576 N.Y.S.2d 218, 582 N.E.2d 601).   We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.


Copied to clipboard