From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1985
107 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

January 24, 1985


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A.M. Myers, J.), entered August 24, 1983, denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to grant summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and otherwise affirmed. This action arises out of a sewer construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant city. The second cause of action seeks to recover damages of $1,850,000 for added costs alleged to have been incurred by numerous work delays caused by the defendant. The contract contained a "no-damage-for-delay" clause. Under the circumstances here, this clause is a bar to recovery ( Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 107 A.D.2d 610; see, also, Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377). Denial of dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3126 is affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross, Carro and Lynch, JJ.


Summaries of

Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1985
107 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW CATAPANO Co., INC., and NACLERIO CONTRACTING Co., INC., a Joint…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1985

Citations

107 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Corinno Civetta Construction Corp. v. City of New York

The project was not finished, however, until March 2, 1980. The city's motion for summary judgment dismissing…