S&S Kings Corp. v. 2 Saab Constr., Inc.

Full text

S&S Kings Corp. v 2 Saab Constr., Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 33445(U) September 30, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 521237/2019 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 09:01 AM INDEX NO. 521237/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE -ST.ATE O.F NEW YORK .. L TERM: KING S: CIVI .. L 8 COMMERCIA COUNTY OF . . .

X --~- - --- --- ---~ ---- - -~-- ---- ---- - -- $··&.S KING S CO~P -., Pia. inti- ff, Dec ision and orde r

- agai nst - Ind.e ~ No.. 5212 37 /201_ 9

2 SAAB CONSTRU¢TTON, INC-.• , and BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defe ndan ts, -Sep temb er 30., 2:02'A. ---------- -- ~- -x --- ---------- -- .·.RUCH Moi: ion Seq. #2 & #.3 ~.RESENT.; _HON". ELSMAN LEO~_

:-§3212 s.eek ing The de.fe n¢!an ts have move d purs uant to CPLR fi•rs t thr·e e caus es of pa.r tial summ ary judg emen t dism issin g the judg eme nt. a,.cti ori. .The pla;i_ :r¹:tif °f :has cros s-mo ved seek ing summ ary

The moti ons h.a:ve been oppo sed resp ectiv e1y. Pape rs ·were - all the argu men ts subm itted by the part ie.s and a;E-te.r revie wing atio n. this cour t now mak,e.s the f_oll owin g dete rmin tion was On Apr il 5,- 2018 the defen da_p t 2 ·saab Con struc tion ·pr.oj ect know n awar p.ed the- gene ral c.on t:rac tor fo-r a cons truc

as c-4·8718. Livo nia Yard , EPK loca ted in Broo ,klyn , New York . The r:i.da r:it..S erkle y Irisu ranc e defe ndan t secu red a. paym ent bonci from -defe work Company and, hi:re d the plai n.tif f as subc ontr acto r for ali rete for a pric e of $55- 0,000 . The defen cl.ari t rela ted to conc f on Nove mber 27 ~ 201$·: te·rm ina:t ed the agre emen t with the plai ntif ary 20i9 i~e plai ntif f and paid plai ntif f $128 ,70Q . In earl y Janu This acti on file d a mech anic- " s lien ·in the. amou nt of $·440 , 000. reco very of the amou nt of was comrn.er1.ced. by the plai ntif f· s-ee• king

the mec hani c's lien . The defe ndan ts file d cros s-cla ims asse rtin g

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 09:01 AM INDEX NO. 521237/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

The plai ntif f does pl a inti ff m..ust esta blts h it suffe rect dama ges. for· "tna teria l:s, aI'gu e iri pass ing that it is enti (led to feEis among .·oth er thiri:g s·.,, equip ment ,. insu ranc e, over head , arid prof it, s\J.ch dama ges. {id) . Ho.w~ver., tl")er e is no p.roo f esta, bl:is l)ing any t be enti.t l.e<;i to More over ; the plai ntif f reite rate: ::; that it .mus ndan t mu.ch mo.re th,an gr·ea ter fees heca us·e the MTA, paid the -defe

defe ndan t -w·as enti tled . Th.is i.nfu sion of fund s fr.om the M.TA., to. thetn . Agai n, the ther efor e,_ argu e·s the plai ntif f mus t ace.r ue at all that ·it hq.s plai n:tif f ha$ faile d to. prt:i sent any evid enc·e

not been paid for all the work it perfc Yrme d-.

ndan t's moti on The~ efore , .b~se d on the fore goin gi the defe t two·. caus es of se.ek in,g sumi nary judg emen t dism i.ss.i ng the firs

actio rt is gran t~d. well sett led that Tu:i:;ning to the lien caus. e o:f i3,cti on, it is

whet ',,. her the lien amou . .. . . . nt :.con taine d.· in a mec hani c's lien is . . .

(Exe cutiv e Tow ers at exag gera ted ii;;. gene r4 lly. a ques tion of ~act AD2d 54 5, 7 56 NY$2d Lido LLC v. Metr o Cort struc t:Lon Serv ice:s , 303 i,n Aaro n v. Grea t ·Bay 46·1 [2d Dept ~., 2003 ]) ~. As the cour t s:t:at .ed 359 [l_St Dept . , 2·0·02] Con tract ing Inc •. , 2.90 AD2.d 326,. 7 36 NYS2 d

"the vali dity .of the lien plai nly turn s on: a disp ute as to

wnet her resp onde nt has com plete d the work requ ired by t.h,~

cont ract , anci, ·acco rding ly;• must. awa it tria l of the f orec 1osu r~

lie.n wa.s wlll fu~l .y actio n:." ·( id) . Thu·s,. a dete -rmi nat.t an that a Scar ano exa-g ge-ra ted c-ann ot alwa ys be deci ded summ arily (§.g§, ,

— 4 —

6 ····· ····· ·--- ·--- 4 of····· ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - --- --- --· -· ·-··· ····· ····· -···· ····· [* 4]

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 09:01 AM INDEX NO. 521237/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

Archi tect, PLLC v, 6322 Holdin g Corp., 35 Misc3 d 1228 (A), 954

NYS2d 761 [Supre me Court Kings County 2012] ). Howev er, summa ry

n judgem ent is appro priate where the eviden ce .of such exagg eratio , is "conc lusive " (see, LMF....:Rs Contr acting Inc., v. Nevze t Kaljic la 126 AD3d 436, 2 NYS3d 351 [1 st Dept., 2015]; see, also, Casel

Const ructio n Corpo ration v. 322 East 93 r:d Stree t LLC, 211 ADJd

458, 181 NYS3d 2b [Pt Dept., 2022]} . Thus, in Inter Metal

NYS2d Fabric ators Ihc,, v. HRH Const ructio n LLC, 94 AD3d 529, 942 l 334 [1& Dept., 2012] the court held conclu sive proof of a wilfu

exagg eratio n of a lien was presen ted where the eviden ce

demon strated the costs and expen ses were knowi ngly marke d up. and Furthe r, the eviden ce reveal ed the compa ny's vice presid ent

chief opera ting office r admit ting to the overch arges and r testif ied that he was "entit led to mark it up to whate ver numbe

I want,, ; and, "Yoµ know what? People do a lot of things " (id) .•

In this case, the plain tiff has fail(co d to prese nt any way. eviden ce at all subst antiat ing the amoun t of the lien in any y, fn oppos ition, the plain tiff raises the same argume nt., nani.e.l

that they must be entitl ed to additi onal fees becau se the MTA

paid the defen dant. Howev er, that is not an itemiz ation of the

lien in any way and does not e;stab lish entitl emen t to any

additi onal funds. There can be no conclµ sion other than the fact

the lien has been wilfu lly exagg erated . Thus, the defen dant's

motion seekin g summa ry judgem ent dismi ssing that cause of action

— 5 —

5 of 6 [* 5]

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 09:01 AM INDEX NO. 521237/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 138 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024

is granted.

Turning to the plainti,ff's cross-motion, the court has

already concluded the defendant did riot breach the contract by

failing to pay the plaintiff any additional fees. Consequently,

the plaintiff's cross...,motion seeking surumary judgement is denied.

So ordered.

ENTER:

DATED: September 30, 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon ~ a n JSC

— 6 —

........... - ........... [* 6] _______ _____________________ __:_ 6 of 6

Footnotes

[1] of 6 [* 1] t the pla inti ff the lien is exag gera ted and that in any even the con trac t. Thes e fail ed to. perf orm purs uan t to the term s of been file d. The mot ions seek ing summ ary judg eme nt have now com plet ed the work in a reas ona ble mc1.n ner pla inti ff asse rts it and base d upoh its work the Met ropo litan Tra nsit Aut hori ty [her eina fter M'I'A] paid the defe nda nt. Thu s, the pla inti ff is enti tled to summary judg eme nt. The defe nda nt argu es the erly and it wilf ully pla inti ff fail ed to perf orm its work prop inti ff is not enti tled exag gera ted the lien and ther efor e the pla nda nt is ent itle d to to summ ary judg eme nt and in fact the defe summ ary judg eme nt. Con clus ions of Law Whe re the mat eria fact s, at issu e in a l case are in disp ute an v. City of New summ ary judg men t ca:n not be gran ted {Zuc kerm

[49] NYS 2d 557, 427NYS 2d 595 [198 0]). Gen eral ly, it is for York , the jury , the trie r of fact to dete rmin e the lega l caus e of any draw n from the inju ry, how ever , whe re only one con clus ion may be mcty be deC ided by the fact s then the que stio n of lega l c;,;tu se v. Jam ison , 189 AD3d 1021 , tria l cou rt as a mat ter o.f law (Ma rino

[136] NYS 3d 324 [2d Dep t., 202 1). a Clai m of brea ch of I t is wel l Set tled tha t to succ eed upoh the exis tenc e of a con trac t the pla inti ff mus t esta blis h the defe nda nt's brea ch and con trac t, the pla ihti ff 1 s perf orm ance , resu ltin g dam ages {Ha rris v. Sew ard Park Hou sing Cor p., 79 AD3d 2 2 of 6 [* 2] 42S, 913 NYS2d 161 [Pt Dep t., 2010 J) . ff was term inat ed ther e Tn this case , at the time the pla inti was app roxi mat ely 65.9 % is no disp ute the work at the pro ject moment of com plet e. The re is furt her no disp ute that at the 2,78 3.60 . The re is furt her term inat ion the pla inti ff was owed $12 slig htly mar~ than that no disp ute that the pla inti ff was paid The pla inti ff argu es the defe nda nt was paid add itio nal amo unt. lect ing to furt her pay the fund s from the MTA and that some how neg pla inti ff has fail ed to pla inti ff was imp rope r. How ever , the ent itle d to any prov ide any evid ence <3.t all that it was add itio nal fund s. The pla inti ff argu es that the defe nda nt the MTA and was paid for subm itted com plet ed work docu men ts to men ts whic h was grea ter the amo unts incl ude d with in thos e docu than the amo unt paid to pla inti ff. The pla inti ff conc lude s tha: t has been plac ed "in the thes e fact s dem onst rate the pla inti ff paid .for its work " (.§.§.§., detr ime ntal pos itio n Of not havi ng been Mem oran dum irt Opp osit ion, page 9 fNYS CEF Doc. No. 106 ]). was paid cert ain sums from How ever , simp ly beca use the defe ndan t the MTA does not mean the pla inti ff has not been paid for all its e fund s. Inde ed, work or is in some way ent itle d to some of thos sure ly no such clau se in the it defi es comm on sens e, and ther e is tob e paid for work it did con trac t, tha t perm its the pla inti ff nt rece ived fund s from the not perf orm simp ly beca use the defe nda trac t clai m the MTA. Thus , to prev ail ori the brea ch of con 3 3 of 6 [* 3]