Gottlieb Contracting, Inc. v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
| Citation | 446 N.Y.S.2d 311,86 A.D.2d 588 |
| Parties | GOTTLIEB CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. Feinstein, Flushing, for plaintiff-respondent.
J. P. Griffin, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J. P., and ROSS, CARRO, SILVERMAN and BLOOM, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 24, 1980, awarding plaintiff $35,808.24 after trial without a jury, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements and the complaint dismissed.
After competitive bidding plaintiff was awarded the electrical contract in connection with the rehabilitation of the Hamilton Grange Branch Library, a landmark building located on 145th Street in Manhattan. The contract price was $127,480. The contract contained exculpatory clauses which, in essence, absolved the City from any liability for damages suffered by the contractor if delayed in the performance of its work by any act or omission of the City or any other contractor having a contract with the City for the performance of work upon the site. The project was to be completed no later than July 21, 1974. As a result of delays, however, plaintiff was unable to finish until July 31, 1975. The work was not accepted until February 1976. Work which should have been performed in 3100 man hours took 4200 man hours.
Plaintiff commenced this action against the City for the recovery of damages allegedly incurred by reason of the delays in completing its work. Plaintiff contends that these delays were caused solely by the City's failure to make suitable work sites available, to procure performance by the other contractors according to schedule, to provide adequate plans and specifications, and to supervise and coordinate the project properly; and by the City's issuance of excessive change orders to the other prime contractors upon whose work progress plaintiff's performance depended. The City interposed the exculpatory clauses as affirmative defenses. Trial Term held the City liable for plaintiff's delay damages, notwithstanding the exculpatory provisions in the contract, and despite its finding that "the City may not have actively or wrongfully interfered with plaintiff's work." The complaint should have been dismissed. The rule in this State is that "the delay or obstruction is within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Travelers Cas. v. Dormitory Auth.-State
-
Corinno Civetta Const. Corp. v. City of New York, NAB-TERN
...at 39-42). Finally, in Gottlieb Contr. v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 1051, 462 N.Y.S.2d 642, 449 N.E.2d 422, affg. on mem. at 86 A.D.2d 588, 446 N.Y.S.2d 311, a case argued and decided with Kalisch-Jarcho, the city urged us to adopt the rule of law they now seek to infer from the court's K......
-
Plato Gen. Constr. Corp../Emco Tech Constr. Corp.. v. Dormitory Auth. of State
...defaults under their contracts” are delays “precisely within the contemplation” of exculpatory clauses ( Gottlieb Contr. v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 588, 589, 446 N.Y.S.2d 311, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 1051, 462 N.Y.S.2d 642, 449 N.E.2d 422). We further note that Plato's original schedule, submit......
-
Novak & Co., Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority
...A.D.2d 155, 159, 388 N.Y.S.2d 388 (4th Dept.1976) (motion to dismiss). In both Kalisch-Jarcho and Gottlieb Contracting Co. v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 588, 446 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1st Dept.1982), aff'd 58 N.Y.2d 1051, 462 N.Y.S.2d 642, 449 N.E.2d 422 (1983) the appellate reversals were after p......