ACS SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., plf-res, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, def-ap

16252. ACS SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., plf-res, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, def-ap — Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Ryan E. Cronin and Charles W. Segal of counsel), for ap — Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhill & Furman PC, New York (Shawn R. Farrell of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its payment bond claim, awarding it damages in the amount of $1,502,964, plus interest in the amount of $362.30 per day until entry of judgment and thereafter at the statutory rate, unanimously modified, on the facts, to delete the amount of damages awarded and substitute $1,501,310.77 therefor, and to delete the amount of interest per day until entry of judgment and substitute $362.26 therefor and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

16252. ACS SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., plf-res, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, def-ap — Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Ryan E. Cronin and Charles W. Segal of counsel), for ap — Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhill & Furman PC, New York (Shawn R. Farrell of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its payment bond claim, awarding it damages in the amount of $1,502,964, plus interest in the amount of $362.30 per day until entry of judgment and thereafter at the statutory rate, unanimously modified, on the facts, to delete the amount of damages awarded and substitute $1,501,310.77 therefor, and to delete the amount of interest per day until entry of judgment and substitute $362.26 therefor and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The general contractor hired by the School Construction Authority (SCA) for a school renovation project obtained a payment bond from defendant to guarantee payment to its subcontractors and material suppliers. It is undisputed that SCA paid the general contractor in full for the work performed by plaintiff subcontractor on the project and that the general contractor failed to remit payment to plaintiff (see General Municipal Law §106-b[2]). General Municipal Law §106-b(2) requires a contractor who receives any payment from a public owner to make prompt payment to its subcontractors for their work “less an amount necessary to satisfy any claims, liens or judgments against the subcontractor… which have not been suitably discharged.” Contrary to defendant’s contention, an unrealized, admittedly “potential” claim for liquidated damages that the SCA may or may not assert against the general contractor does not constitute a claim for liquidated damages against plaintiff by which defendant or the general contractor may offset its payment to plaintiff (see NRS Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 134 AD2d 219 [1st Dept 1987]).

ACS SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., plf-res, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal