Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Bat- Jac Contracting, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 6, 2003

1 A.D.3d 128; 766 N.Y.S.2d 352; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11640

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dormitory Authority-State (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
Start Elevator, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Start Elevator, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Hi-Tech Constr. & Mgt. Servs. Inc. v. Housing Auth. of the City of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Everest General Contractors v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Rifenburg Construction, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

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

*129Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 27, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim, which is expressly made a prerequisite to recovery under the parties’ contract and which is subject to strict construction as a matter of public policy (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20, 33-34 [1998]). Plaintiffs previous letter notice is not designated as a notice of claim and, in any event, fails to meet the requirements of the contract’s notice provision. Even if the notice defect were to be ignored, plaintiff waived any right to sue for delay damages under the contract. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence or willful misconduct (North Star Contr. Corp. v City of New York, 203 AD2d 214, 215 [1994]), and its claim is tantamount to an allegation of poor contract administration that is subject to the bar of the exculpatory provision (see T.J.D. Constr. Co. v City of New York, 295 AD2d 180 [2002]; S.N. Tannor, Inc. v A.F.C. Enters., 276 AD2d 363, 364 [2000]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P, Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.