From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

P.J. Carlin Constr. Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 1977
59 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

November 3, 1977


Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 22, 1976, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant to perform the general construction work for the Academic and Science Building of New York City Community College. Paragraph 1A(e) thereof provides for liquidated damages of $10 per cubic yard for understrength concrete. The defendant claims that 1,904 cubic yards of the concrete were understrength and, in accordance with paragraph 1A(e), it withheld $19,040 allegedly due plaintiff under the agreement. Plaintiff does not contest the fact that certain portions of the concrete were understrength. However, it contends that the building is structurally safe and can be presently used for its intended purpose. Generally, where a contract contains a liquidated damages clause, the party seeking to repudiate that clause must show that the agreed damage is so exorbitant as to be in the nature of a penalty. (Knoblauch v Little Falls Dairy Co., 241 App. Div. 910.) In this proceeding, plaintiff's principal has submitted a self-serving affidavit declaring that the defendant has not been damaged. This affidavit, standing alone, does not probatively establish that the defendant has not been damaged. Moreover, it is insufficient to overcome the contention of defendant's senior civil engineer that the city has been actually damaged because the future use of the building has been structurally limited by the understrength concrete. Thus, a trial is necessary to determine the factual question of whether the defendant has sustained actual or merely nominal damages. If actual damages have been sustained, a collateral question is presented as to whether the liquidated damages clause must be denied enforcement because it constitutes a penalty.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Birns, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

P.J. Carlin Constr. Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 1977
59 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

P.J. Carlin Constr. Co. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:P.J. CARLIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 1977

Citations

59 A.D.2d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Rattigan v. Commodore Intern. Ltd.

Nevertheless, defendant has the burden of proving that the liquidated damage clause to which it freely…

Pacheco v. Scoblionko

See also McIlvenny v. Horton, 227 Ark. 826, 302 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (1957). See, e.g., Hubbard Business Plaza v.…