Lapenna Contracting, Ltd. v. Mullen

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an order largely awarding damages to homeowners after a contractor failed to comply with statutory home-improvement-contract requirements, performed deficient and incomplete work, and willfully exaggerated a mechanic's lien. The court modified the breach-of-contract counterclaim award from $43,025.91 to $29,790.91 to correct duplicative damages, while affirming the remaining awards and the dismissal of the contractor's claims.

Holdings

1. A contractor cannot enforce a home-improvement contract that fails to include the approximate or estimated dates when work will begin and be substantially completed, as required by General Business Law § 771 (1) (b).
2. The evidence supported the finding that Lapenna breached the construction contract and supported an award to defendants for the reasonable cost of completing the contemplated construction.
3. The breach-of-contract counterclaim award had to be reduced from $43,025.91 to $29,790.91 because the $13,235 credit for double-billed, inappropriate, or unjustified charges had already been accounted for.
4. The evidence supported the finding that Lapenna willfully exaggerated its mechanic's lien, rendering the lien void and supporting an award of damages and reasonable counsel fees to defendants.
5. Arguments concerning premature termination, improper acceleration, and anticipatory repudiation were unpreserved because they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a contractor may enforce a home-improvement contract that fails to comply with General Business Law § 771 (1) (b).
2. Whether the evidence supported the Mullens' breach-of-contract counterclaim and the damages awarded for completion of the construction project.
3. Whether the damages awarded on the breach-of-contract counterclaim were excessive because the trial court counted a $13,235 credit twice.
4. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Lapenna willfully exaggerated its mechanic's lien and the resulting damages.
5. Whether Lapenna's remaining appellate arguments, including premature termination, improper acceleration, and anticipatory repudiation, were preserved for review.

Disposition

affirmed