In this construction defect case, the plaintiff, owner of the Harriet Tubman Gardens Apartment Corporation, sued the sponsor, Bluestone Organization and the our client, York Restoration Corporation. York was a subcontractor retained by the general contractor to repair leaks in the façade of the building pursuant to the plans and specifications prepared by architect, Arthur Kahane Architect PC. Plaintiff alleged leaks continued after York completed its work. Our position was that York had no liability because it performed its work correctly and in accordance with Kahane’s plans as required by its subcontract. Plaintiff and Bluestone argued that a 2016 field investigation report by plaintiff’s expert raised issues of fact as to whether York’s work was defective. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, which denied our motion, and granted our motion, dismissing our client from the action.
Nothing in the report of plaintiff’s expert said York’s work was defective, or that York was in breach of its contract or Banta’s or Kahane’s specifications. The only criticism was the scope of the repairs and that caulk should not have been specified, both of which were Kahane’s responsibility. There was no conflicting expert report or opinion.
New York case law in every department holds that where a contractor is bound to follow plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for defects in the plans and specifications. Where, as here, an owner or its agents certified that a contractor’s work was completed according to the contract the contractor is entitled to summary judgment. We cited MG Hotel, Gray v. RL Best and numerous other cases.
In sum, we argued, and the Court agreed, that York met its burden of establishing that it performed its contractual obligations without exception and Plaintiff’s own expert did not fault York’s work. York established and it was undisputed, that York had no independent obligations other than to do what Kahane told it to do and do it to Kahane’s satisfaction and obtain Kahane’s approval.
Nothing in the report of plaintiff’s expert said York’s work was defective, or that York was in breach of its contract or Banta’s or Kahane’s specifications. The only criticism was the scope of the repairs and that caulk should not have been specified, both of which were Kahane’s responsibility. There was no conflicting expert report or opinion.
New York case law in every department holds that where a contractor is bound to follow plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for defects in the plans and specifications. Where, as here, an owner or its agents certified that a contractor’s work was completed according to the contract the contractor is entitled to summary judgment. We cited MG Hotel, Gray v. RL Best and numerous other cases.
In sum, we argued, and the Court agreed, that York met its burden of establishing that it performed its contractual obligations without exception and Plaintiff’s own expert did not fault York’s work. York established and it was undisputed, that York had no independent obligations other than to do what Kahane told it to do and do it to Kahane’s satisfaction and obtain Kahane’s approval.
RSS Feed
