Ferro Fabricators, Inc. v. 1807-1811 Park Ave. Dev. Corp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendants summary judgment on counterclaims for breach of contract and willful exaggeration of a mechanic's lien. The court found issues of fact concerning the completion schedule, the extent of plaintiff's completed work, and whether plaintiff knowingly included unapproved change orders in the lien. The court also held that triable issues precluded summary judgment on plaintiff's lien foreclosure and breach of contract claims, while declining to address certain additional challenges.

Holdings

1. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because the affidavits and deposition testimony raised issues of fact regarding whether Ferro had been provided a completion schedule and, if so, whether Ferro failed to comply with it.
2. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their willful-exaggeration counterclaim because issues of fact existed concerning the true extent of work performed and whether Ferro knowingly included unapproved change orders in the lien.
3. Ferro was not entitled to summary judgment because triable issues remained concerning whether it breached the contract and the extent of unpaid work it performed.
4. The court could consider Ferro's challenge to the denial of summary judgment on its lien foreclosure and breach-of-contract claims even though Ferro did not cross-appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their breach-of-contract counterclaim based on Ferro's allegedly delayed completion of work.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their counterclaim for willful exaggeration of a mechanic's lien.
3. Whether the record entitled Ferro to summary judgment on its lien foreclosure and breach-of-contract claims despite the absence of a cross-appeal.
4. Whether the court should address Ferro's challenge to the timeliness of defendants' cross motion and the dismissal of its quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims.

Disposition

affirmed