Opinion
July 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The trial court erred in setting aside the quantum meruit award for services rendered outside of the oral agreement, since such an award is warranted here. Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R. R. Co. ( 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388) and Unisys Corp. v. Hercules Inc. ( 224 A.D.2d 365) state the general rule that: "It is impermissible * * * to seek damages in an action sounding in quasi contract where the suing party has fully performed on a valid written agreement, the existence of which is undisputed, and the scope of which clearly covers the dispute between the parties" (70 N.Y.2d, supra, at 389). However, where "there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue, plaintiff may proceed upon a theory of quantum meruit and will not be required to elect his or her remedies" ( Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v. Walber 36th St. Assocs., 187 A.D.2d 225, 228; see also, Fennell Minkoff v. Wall St. Transcript Corp., 239 A.D.2d 160; Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v. Clowes, 224 A.D.2d 312).
Here, there were hotly disputed issues as to the scope of the work agreed to in the oral contract and the scope of the additional work requested thereafter, and as to the factors to be considered in determining plaintiff's compensation.
The trial court's view that we overruled Sternberg in Unisys was incorrect, especially considering that we carefully distinguished Sternberg (Unisys Corp. v. Hercules Inc., supra, at 369) and that we have relied upon it subsequently ( see, e.g., Randall v. Guido, 238 A.D.2d 164; Solstein Prods. v. Rabanne, 236 A.D.2d 216).
The trial record supports the jury's determination that plaintiff was entitled to the reasonable value of its services. Where viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff ( see, Baker v. Turner Constr. Co., 200 A.D.2d 525, 526), the evidence shows that the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to provide structural plans for the "Main Pavilion Addition", comprising 75,000 square feet, for a fee of $145,000. The evidence also allowed the jury to find that the balance of the structural work performed by plaintiff, i.e., the operating room addition and six sets of plans over seven months, was never the subject of the parties' oral agreement and was valued at $167,965.82, the amount of the final invoice. In rendering its award, the jury simply took the amount it determined was due plaintiff and divided it between the theories of recovery as it understood them to be presented in accordance with the evidence.
Finally, we find that plaintiff has established its entitlement to prejudgment interest on the quantum meruit verdict (CPLR 5001 [c]; Kleartone Transparent Prods. Co. v. Dun Bradstreet, 118 A.D.2d 832), and that such interest should be computed from June 27, 1990, the date plaintiff demanded payment on its final invoice.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.