Opinion
12-13-2016
METRO FOUNDATION CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MARCO MARTELLI ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
Bryan Ha Attorney at Law, White Plains (Bryan Ha of counsel), for appellant. Mastropietro Law Group, PLLC, New York (Robert J. Egielski of counsel), for respondent.
Bryan Ha Attorney at Law, White Plains (Bryan Ha of counsel), for appellant.
Mastropietro Law Group, PLLC, New York (Robert J. Egielski of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SAXE, FEINMAN, KAHN, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its second, third, and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly granted defendant leave to amend its answer to assert the defenses of collateral estoppel and res judicata since plaintiff failed to show that it was prejudiced by the amendment of the answer to assert legal theories not requiring additional discovery or trial preparation (see Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Briarpatch Film Corp., 60 A.D.3d 585, 585, 876 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1st Dept.2009] ; CPLR 3025[b] ).
The court correctly dismissed the breach of contract causes of action as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Friedman v. Park Lane Motors, 18 A.D.2d 262, 268, 238 N.Y.S.2d 973 [1st Dept.1963] ). The judgment dismissing the action brought by plaintiff in federal court against defendant's surety (based on defendant's alleged failure to pay plaintiff in accord with the contract), although obtained on default, is a proper basis for collateral estoppel since it resulted from plaintiff's willful and repeated refusal to provide discovery in that action (see Kanat v. Ochsner, 301 A.D.2d 456, 755 N.Y.S.2d 371 [1st Dept.2003] ; Matter of Abady, 22 A.D.3d 71, 85, 800 N.Y.S.2d 651 [1st Dept.2005] ). Plaintiff may not re-litigate the contract issues against defendant, because those issues, which plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the federal action but "affirmatively chose not to by [its] own failure to comply with court orders" (Kanat, 301 A.D.2d at 458, 755 N.Y.S.2d 371 ), are dispositive here.
Plaintiff's claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are precluded by the valid contract between the parties (Clark–Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190 [1987] ).