logo CityLand
      • Home
      • About CityLand
      • CityLand Sponsors
      • Filings & Decisions
      • Commentary
      • Archive
      • Resources
      • CityLaw
      • Current Issue

    Contract Clause Ruled Ambiguous


    CityLaw  •  Notice of Claim
    06/22/2018   •    Leave a Comment

    P.S. 270 in Queens. Image credit: Google Maps.

    During a seven year period Contractor and School Construction Authority agreed to multiple time extensions on $32.75 million contract. In February 2001, The New York City School Construction Authority entered into a $32,750,000 contract with AMCC Corporation, a general contractor, to design and build P.S. 270, a three-story public school located at 233-15 Merrick Boulevard, Queens. Over the course of the construction, the contractor submitted proposed change orders to the Authority totaling $4,838,245.57 for the extra work. The Authority agreed to some change orders, but rejected others.

    Between August 2004 and August 2011, the contractor and the Authority entered into a series of agreements that extended the contractor’s time to commence legal proceedings and serve notices of claim against the Authority. When the Authority and the contractor failed to reach an agreement on the extra work, the contractor sued the Authority for disputed extra work totaling $2,040,021.04.

    The Authority moved to dismiss the contractor’s lawsuit, arguing that the contractor either had failed to either serve timely notice of claims, or failed to preserve claims in the extensions. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Phyllis Flug, agreed with the Authority and dismissed the contractor’s claims.

    On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed, ruling that the contract term extending the contractor’s time to serve a notice of claim was ambiguous as to whether it covered notices of claims that were timely as well as notices of claims that were already untimely at the time the extension was signed. The Appellate Division sent the case back to Judge Flug to resolve the issue of contract interpretation.

    AMCC Corp. v. N.Y. City Sch. Const. Auth., 62 N.Y.S.3d 430 (2 Dep’t. 2017) (Attorneys: Vincent J. Torna, Sophia Cahill, for AMCC; Zachary W. Carter, Scott Shorr, Jonathan A. Popolow, for City).

     

    By: Danielle Mabe (Danielle is a New York Law School Graduate, Class of 2018.)

    Share this:

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    Tags : ambiguous, clause, contract, P.S. 270, public school
    Category : CityLaw

    Comment on this article

    Click here to cancel reply.

    Subscribe To Free Alerts

    In a Reader

    Desktop Reader Bloglines Google Live Netvibes Newsgator Yahoo! What's This?

    Follow Us on Social Media

    twitterfacebook

    Search

    Search by Category

      City Council
      CityLaw
      City Planning Commission
      Board of Standards & Appeals
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
      Economic Development Corporation
      Housing Preservation & Development
      Administrative Decisions
      Court Decisions
      Filings and Decisions
      CityLand Profiles

    Search by Date

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School | 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 | 212.431.2100 | Privacy | Terms | Code of Conduct | DMCA | Policies
    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.