A.H.A. General Const., Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority
Decision Date | 11 June 1998 |
Citation | 92 N.Y.2d 20,677 N.Y.S.2d 9 |
Parties | , 699 N.E.2d 368, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5926 A.H.A. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey Schanback, Henry Schoenfeld, Nancy M. Harnett and James R. Adolf, New York City, for appellant.
Scotto, Georgoulis, Dockery & Scotto, New York City (Chris Georgoulis and Michael McDermott, of counsel), for respondent.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (George Gutwirth and Francis F. Caputo, New York City, of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae.
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.
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.
The Jennings and Hoe agreements include identical provisions regarding "extra work" (i.e., work other than that required by the contract at the time of its execution). Article 25 enables the Authority to order extra work and requires the contractor to perform it. When extra work is ordered, a change order detailing the nature of the job and providing a price increase for the labor is signed to compensate the contractor. As Article 25 states:
The two agreements also contain notice and reporting requirements--i.e., requirements that respondent timely submit notices of claim and relevant documentation to reserve its right to receive payment for any extra work. These requirements enable the Authority to verify whether allegedly extra work is in fact beyond the scope of the contract, as well as the time, labor, material and cost involved. Article 27 sets forth the procedures to be followed in the event the parties disagree over whether certain work is within or beyond the scope of the original contract:
Relatedly, Article 28 mandates that respondent furnish the Authority with daily written statements documenting the disputed work, as follows:
Article 51 underscores the importance of the notice and reporting provisions. It precludes the contractor from asserting any cause of action against the Housing Authority without first "strictly" adhering to those provisions:
Further, the parties agreed in Article 31 that no estoppel would operate against the Housing Authority:
Finally, Article 64 of the Agreements is a merger clause:
Two months after the award, construction began. According to respondent, during the course of the projects (as was the case on their previous projects), the Housing Authority would direct respondent to perform extra work, the parties would negotiate a price, and the work would then be done with the expectation that a change order would be issued at the agreed-upon price. Some time later, claims respondent, the Authority would issue a change order in conformity with the parties' agreement authorizing an increase in the contract price. If, however, the parties could not agree upon the terms of the change order, respondent would submit correspondence to support its position that the work was not required by the contract and warranted additional compensation. The correspondence would serve as respondent's notice of claim and the claim would be resolved at a later date.
The Authority has a different recollection. It denies respondent's contention that, with respect to work that the Authority claimed was contract work but respondent contended was extra, the Authority permitted respondent to use correspondence as a substitute for the documentation required by the Agreements. By the express terms of the Agreements, argues the Authority, only when both parties agreed that an item of work was extra and when prior to the performance of the work the Authority ordered respondent in writing to perform the work for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc.
...upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself." A.H.A. Gen. Constr., Inc. v. N.Y. City Housing Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 677 N.Y.S.2d 9, 699 N.E.2d 368, 374 (1998) (Kaye, C.J.) (quoting Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 87, 188 N.E. 163 (19......
-
Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd.
...to act in such a way as to "frustrate[ ] or prevent[ ] the occurrence of the condition." A.H.A. Gen. Constr., Inc. v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 31, 677 N.Y.S.2d 9, 699 N.E.2d 368 (1998) (quotation marks omitted); see also Stern v. Gepo Realty Corp., 289 N.Y. 274, 277, 45 N.E.2d 4......
-
Travelers Cas. v. Dormitory Auth.-State
...Kalisch-Jarcho, 58 N.Y.2d at 385, 461 N.Y.S.2d 746, 448 N.E.2d 413; see also A.H.A. Gen. Constr., Inc. v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 31, 677 N.Y.S.2d 9, 699 N.E.2d 368 (1998) (" A.H.A. "). Conduct that "betokens a reckless indifference to the rights of others" constitutes "gross n......
-
ACC Concrete Corp. v. Core Cont'l Constr., LLC
...the excavation and foundation work, and that contract did not provide for additional or extra work, see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 24-25 (1998), rock removal was beyond thescope of plaintiff's and CCC's original contract. The deposition testimony by Isol......
-
Claims and Disputes Against a State or Local Government Owner: What Construction Attorneys Should Know
...note 5, § 4:35. 12. See McMillan, supra note 2, at 511. 13. See id . 14. See generally 1A BRUNER & O’CONNOR, supra note 5, § 4:35. 15. 92 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 699 N.E.2d 368, 370 (1998). 16. Id. , 699 N.E.2d at 372. 17. Id. at 375; see also Baker Heavy & Highway, Inc. v. N.Y. State Thruway Auth .......