Centennial Elevator Indus., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Decision Date04 June 2015
Docket Number450047/13 15307A 15307
Citation11 N.Y.S.3d 564,129 A.D.3d 449,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04743
PartiesCENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 449
11 N.Y.S.3d 564
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04743

CENTENNIAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.

450047/13 15307A 15307

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

June 4, 2015.


11 N.Y.S.3d 566

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains (Erin M. Ferrone of counsel), for appellant.

David I. Farber, New York (Gil Nahmias of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.

Opinion

129 A.D.3d 449

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 25, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from underlying order, same court and Justice, entered February 4, 2014, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff and defendant NYCHA entered into a contract (the Contract) under which plaintiff was to perform elevator work at a NYCHA housing development. NYCHA directed plaintiff to store its equipment and materials at certain NYCHA-

129 A.D.3d 450

controlled locations, which subsequently experienced multiple sewage back ups, causing damage to plaintiff's equipment and materials. Plaintiff now seeks to recover money for work it was required to perform to clean and maintain the equipment and material that got damaged by sewage back ups.

Plaintiff contends that, notwithstanding Section 24 of the Contract, under which it assumed the risk of “loss or damage to any materials or equipment” stored in any location made available by NYCHA, NYCHA is liable for damage caused by its own negligence or willful negligence. However, regardless of whether the clause effectively exculpates NYCHA, plaintiff is precluded from bringing any negligence claim because it failed to serve NYCHA with a notice of intention to commence a negligence action within 90 days after the claim arose (see Public Housing Law § 157[2] ; General Municipal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Universal Constr. Res., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 9 de março de 2021
    ...New York City Hous. Auth., 138 A.D.3d 423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Centennial El. Indus., Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 129 A.D.3d 449, 11 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2015] ).144 N.Y.S.3d 163 As to the Mariner's Harbor project, UCR's letter dated July 19, 2015, which UCR claims ......
  • Intercontinental Constr. Contracting, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 9559
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 de junho de 2019
    ...New York City Hous. Auth. , 138 A.D.3d 423, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Centennial El. Indus., Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth. , 129 A.D.3d 449, 450, 11 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2015] ). The letters sent by petitioner were not delineated notices of claim, and did not state either th......
  • P.A.L. Envtl. Safety Corp. v. APS Contracting, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 de dezembro de 2021
    ...at 471, 144 N.Y.S.3d 162 ). In addition, the contract included a no estoppel clause ( Centennial El. Indus., Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 129 A.D.3d 449, 450, 11 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2015] ...
  • Tycoon Constr. Corp. v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 16 de fevereiro de 2023
    ...meruit, as the written contract governs the subject matter in dispute (see Centennial El. Indus., Inc. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 129 A.D.3d 449, 450, 11 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2015] ). However, Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the cause of action for termination for convenien......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT