In re Cavalry Const., Inc.
Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-CV-5122 (KMK),09-CV-5122 (KMK) |
Citation | 428 B.R. 25 |
Parties | In re CAVALRY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Debtor, Cavalry Construction, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. WDF, Inc., WDF, Inc./Cavalry Construction, Inc., Federal Insurance Company, Seaboard Surety Company and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as its successor in interest, and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendants/Appellants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Arlene Gordon Oliver, Esq., Rattet, Pasternak & Gordon-Oliver, LLP, Harrison, NY, for Plaintiff/Appellee/Debtor.
Howard S. Jacobowitz, Esq., The McDonough Law Firm, LLP, New Rochelle, NY, for Defendants/Appellants.
Appellants appeal from a Final Order of the Bankruptcy Court dated April 24, 2009. For the reasons given herein, the Order of the Bankruptcy Court is vacated in part and affirmed in part, and this case is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
This appeal deals with six public works projects (the "Projects"), known as Forsythe H. S., Julia Richman H. S., P.S. 127, I.S. 84, P.S. 4 and Bronx School for Law ("Bronx Law"). (Defs.' Br. Appealing Final J. of the Bankr.Ct. Dated & Entered Apr. 24, 2009 ("WDF's Mem.") 1, 3.) The relationships between the various Parties were the same for all of the Projects with the exception of Bronx Law. ( Id. at 3.)
For all the Projects except Bronx Law, Appellant WDF, Inc. ("WDF") entered into a prime contract with the owner, The New York City School Construction Authority (the "SCA").1 ( Id.) Cavalry Construction, Inc. ("Cavalry" or "Appellee") was a subcontractor to WDF. ( Id.)
For the Bronx Law Project, the owner, SCA, entered into a general construction contract with Silverite Construction Co., Inc. ("Silverite"). ( Id.) Silverite then entered into a subcontract with WDF for three trades. ( Id.) WDF, in turn, entered into a second-tier subcontract with WDF, Inc./Cavalry Construction, Inc. (the "Joint Venture"), which is a joint venture, for the masonry work included in those trades. ( Id.) Finally, the Joint Venture entered into a third-tier subcontract with Cavalry. ( Id.)
Cavalry commenced an adversary proceeding against WDF and then amended its complaint to seek recovery against the SCA, the Joint Venture, and Silverite. ( Id. at 4.) Subsequently, Cavalry commenced separate actions against Federal Insurance Company ("Federal"), Seaboard Surety Company ("Seaboard") jointly and severally with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St.Paul"), as Seaboard's successor in interest, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland ("Fidelity"), and WDF's labor and material payment bond sureties on the Projects. ( Id.) Cavalry then discontinued its Bronx Law action against Silverite. ( Id.)
After a trial, the Bankruptcy Court, per Judge Adlai S. Hardin, Jr., ordered, inter alia, that judgment be awarded to Cavalry on its subcontract claims against WDF, and that Cavalry's public improvement liens against the SCA be foreclosed. ( Id. at 5.) Appellants appealed and present three issues:
( Id. at 1.)
All of these claims arise under New York law, as no party disputes. (WDF's Mem. 8-18 (repeatedly citing New York law); Appellee's Answering Appeal Br. ("Cavalry's Mem.") 3-28 (same)); see also Postlewaite v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 411 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir.2005) ( ).
Appellants filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2009. Briefing was completed on September 9, 2009. The Court held oral argument on March 11, 2010. At the same time as Appellants appealed in this case, the SCA appealed from the same Order of the Bankruptcy Court in another case (Case No. 09-CV-5123). At the request of the Parties, the Court is keeping the two cases separate and will issue separate opinions.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8013, a District Court reviews a bankruptcy court's conclusions of law de novo and reviews findings of fact for clear error. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8013; Lubow Machine Co. v. Bayshore Wire Prods. Corp. (In re Bayshore Wire Prods. Corp.), 209 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir.2000) ; Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Enron Natural Gas Mktg. Corp. (In re Enron Corp.), 307 B.R. 372, 378 (S.D.N.Y.2004) ().
Under the clear error standard, "[t]here is a strong presumption in favor of a trial court's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence," and a reviewing court will not upset a factual finding "unless [it is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Travellers Int'l A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 41 F.3d 1570, 1579 (2d Cir.1994); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) ; Ceraso v. Motiva Enters., LLC, 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir.2003) ( ). In particular, "[t]he decisions as to whose testimony to credit ... [are] solely within the provinces of the trier of fact...." Ceraso, 326 F.3d at 316-17; see also Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504 ().
There are two contracts and two issues that are relevant to the Bronx Law Project. The first contract was the agreementthat established the 50/50 Joint Venture between Cavalry and WDF (the "Venture Contract"). (Cavalry's Mem. 3.) The second contract was a third-tier subcontractor agreement between the Joint Venture and Cavalry (the "Masonry Contract"). (WDF's Mem. 3.) The first issue is whether WDF was liable to Cavalry on either contract. The second issue is whether WDF was liable to Cavalry under New York's Lien Law § 42.
The Parties do not agree upon the theory the Bankruptcy Court used to render judgment in Cavalry's favor, nor upon which contract formed the basis for liability. (WDF's Mem. 6 ( ); Cavalry's Mem. 3 ( ).) To clarify the situation, the Court first addresses New York's breach of contract law, and then examines the Bankruptcy Court's holdings in order to demonstrate that breach of the Masonry Contract did not form the basis for Judge Hardin's Order.
WDF seeks to invoke the general rule that one party cannot sue another for breach of contract unless the two parties are in privity. See Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia, 984 F.Supp. 209, 215 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ; Crabtree v. Tristar Auto. Group, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 155, 166 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (); Spectrum Painting Contractors, Inc. v. Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 64 A.D.3d 565, 883 N.Y.S.2d 262, 272 (App.Div.2009) .
The only signatories to the Masonry Contract were Cavalry and the Joint Venture. (Cavalry's Mem. 3.) Cavalry argues that even though the Masonry Contract was signed only by Cavalry and the Joint Venture, the "functional equivalent of privity" existed between Cavalry and WDF. ( Id. at 7.) Indeed, New York law recognizes privity-like relationships in construction situations under certain circumstances. See, e.g., RLI Ins. Co. v. King Sha Group, 598 F.Supp.2d 438, 443-44 (S.D.N.Y.2009) ( ); City Sch. Dist. of Newburgh v. Hugh Stubbins & Assocs., Inc., 85 N.Y.2d 535, 626 N.Y.S.2d 741, 650 N.E.2d 399, 401 (1995) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McNerney v. Rescap Borrower Claims Trust (In re Residential Capital, LLC)
...with substantial justice or that does not affect the parties' substantial rights, is not grounds for reversal. In re Cavalry Const., Inc. , 428 B.R. 25, 41–42 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citation omitted); In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. , 204 B.R. 99, 106 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quotation and cit......
-
Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.
...fact that ICON owed them a cognizable duty of care pursuant to the functional-equivalent-of-privity doctrine. See In re Cavalry Const., Inc., 428 B.R. 25, 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Karas, D.J.), aff'd, 425 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) ("The essential element of [the functional equiv......
-
Kapsis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing Inc.
...in privity and that privity can be imputed to it, which, again, is not alleged.” (emphasis added)); see generally In re Cavalry Constr., Inc., 428 B.R. 25, 31 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“The determination of whether the ‘functional equivalent of privity’ exists ... is a highly fact-dependent endeavor ......
-
Zim Am. Integrated Shipping Servs. Co. v. Sportswear Grp., LLC
...in a breach of contract action unless it has thereafter assumed or been assigned the contract.’ ") (quoting In re Cavalry Const., Inc. , 428 B.R. 25, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ); see also Crabtree v. Tristar Auto. Grp., Inc. , 776 F. Supp. 155, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff'd 425 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2......