Morelli Masons, Inc. v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dormitory Authority-State (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
- Nicholas Indus. & Constr. Servs. Inc. v. NASDI, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, f/u/o/b PROFEX, INC. and PROFEX, INC. v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, KIRLIN BUILDERS, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc. v. FC 80 Dekalb Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Promo-Pro Ltd. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 11, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this action by a subcontractor seeking delay damages from its general contractor and payment on the bond with respect to such claim, the motion court properly held that plaintiff had failed to comply strictly with the notice provision in its subcontract, which, while not containing the conditional “unless” language found in the contract in A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth. (92 NY2d 20), specifically provided that the failure to comply with such provision would constitute a waiver of the subcontractor’s claim for damages. Barsotti's, Inc. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (254 AD2d 211), which involved a claim for extra work under a private contract, is distinguishable. In addition, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, here there was no clear relinquishment of the right to rely on the contractual provision by an indisputable departure based on a course of conduct or oral agreement (cf., Austin v Barber, 227 AD2d 826, 828).
We deem it significant, as did the motion court, that plaintiff
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.