Mars Associates, Inc. v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York (N.Y. 1983)
- Matter of LAWS Constr. Corp. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Martin Iron & Construction Corp. v. E.W. Howell Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Lintas: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. 525 Lexington Avenue Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Clifton Steel Corp. v. County of Monroe Public Works Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Herman H. Schwartz, Inc. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Albert Saggese, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Board of Higher Education v. Bass & D'Alessandro Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment appealed from and-the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in that court’s memorandum.
In addition, we note that the circumstances of the waiver demonstrate as a matter of law that it was designed to cover the claim upon which plaintiff now sues. Plaintiff is a sophisticated contractor, and in withstanding the motion for summary judgment it did not show that the instant claim for delay damages was covered by the exceptions from the blanket waiver. Those exceptions covered “various change orders and work under protest”, and the parties have used these terms to refer to extra work beyond the original contract, not claims for damages by reason of acts or omissions of the city. If the exemptions were intended to be broader in scope, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to state its intentions with clarity.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.