From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradley Envtl. v. Village of Sylvan Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 16, 1983
98 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

December 16, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Stone, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: In their complaint against the defendant village for breach of contract in connection with a water pollution abatement project and water pollution control plant, plaintiffs in the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action seek damages resulting from defendant's delay in, among other things, approving shop drawings, materials, and vendors. On motion of third-party defendant, the consulting engineer, Special Term, relying on Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v. City of New York ( 58 N.Y.2d 377) dismissed the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action as barred by the clause in the contract precluding recovery by the contractor for damages occasioned "by any delay on the part of the owner in doing the work or furnishing the material to be done or furnished by it." This was error. A no-damage-for-delay clause must be strictly construed against the party seeking exemption from liability because of its own fault ( Ippolito-Lutz Inc. v. Cohoes Housing Auth., 22 A.D.2d 990; see Johnson v. City of New York, 191 App. Div. 205, affd 231 N.Y. 564). On the sparse record before us (containing only isolated clauses from the contract documents) it cannot be ascertained whether the type of delay alleged in the complaint was contemplated by the parties and intended to be included as delay "on the part of the owner in doing the work" (see Peckham Road Co. v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 139, affd 28 N.Y.2d 734). The court should arrive at the ultimate construction of the clause based on a reading of all the contract documents in the light of relevant proof pertaining to the nature of the job and the circumstances surrounding the signing of the contract (see, generally, 22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts, General Rules of Construction, §§ 187-228, particularly §§ 195, 196, 220, 221; see, also, Norman Co. v. County of Nassau, 27 A.D.2d 936).


Summaries of

Bradley Envtl. v. Village of Sylvan Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 16, 1983
98 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Bradley Envtl. v. Village of Sylvan Beach

Case Details

Full title:BRADLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTORS et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1983

Citations

98 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Nab-Tern Constructors v. City of New York

On this record, we cannot conclusively determine whether plaintiff has a cause of action for contemplated…

Corinno Civetta Construction Corp. v. City of New York

In doing so, we specifically noted that the jury, in response to a special interrogatory, had determined that…