A.H.A. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING
AUTHORITY, APPELLANT.
92 N.Y.2d 920, 703 N.E.2d 273, 680 N.Y.S.2d 461 (1998).
June 11, 1998
1 No. 90
(98 NY Int. 0077)
Decided June 11, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey Schanback, for appellant.
Chris Georgoulis, for respondent.
City of New York, amicus curiae.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
This appeal centers on the notice and reporting requirements contained
in two construction agreements between respondent (A.H.A. General
Contracting, Inc.) and appellant (New York City Housing Authority).
Seeking damages for extra work,respondent contends that the Housing
Authority committed misconduct in its performance of the contracts,
entitling respondent to recover despite its own noncompliance with the
notice and reporting requirements. We conclude that because there is
no showing that appellant's alleged misconduct in any way prevented or
hindered respondent's compliance with those contract requirements,
appellant's summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint should be
granted.
I.
In July 1990, the Housing Authority a public benefit corporation that
builds, operates and maintains housing for low income individuals
throughout New York City publicly bid two Bronx construction
contracts, one related to the rehabilitation of three buildings and
the creation of park areas on Jennings Street (the "Jennings
contract") and the second to rehabilitation work on three buildings on
Hoe Avenue (the "Hoe contract"). On October 5, 1990, the Housing
Authority awarded respondent the Jennings contract for the price of
$2,316,000 and the Hoe contract for the price of $2,410,000.
SNIPPETS:
A.H.A. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., RESPONDENT, v.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Chris Georgoulis, for respondent.
City of New York, amicus curiae.
This appeal centers on the notice and reporting requirements contained in two construction
Seeking damages for extra work,respondent contends that the Housing Authority committed
We conclude that because there is no showing that appellant's alleged misconduct in any way
In July 1990, the Housing Authority a public benefit corporation that builds, operates and
The Jennings and Hoe agreements include identical provisions regarding "extra work".
a change order detailing the nature of the job and providing a priceincrease for the labor is
This Contract may be modified or changed by the Housing Authority from time to time, in a
Relatedly, Article 28 mandates that respondent furnish the Authority with daily written
With respect to the Hoe contract, respondent claimed 14 extra items, totaling $205,126.34.
The Authority also disputed respondent's contention that the two rescinded change orders
Supreme Court granted the Housing Authority's motion and denied respondent's cross motion,
Respondent, seeking reargument, claimed that the Housing Authority had not required it to
It further agreed with Supreme Court that respondent did not comply with the notice and
Corp. v City of New York, 67 NY2d 297, 309; Kalisch Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d
A condition precedent is linked to the implied obligation of a party not to "do anything
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
