Legal Opinion

Sicoli & Massaro, Inc. v. Niagara Falls Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 21, 2001PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking partial summary judgment dismissing the first through sixth and eighth causes of action, each of which sought damages for extra work under a municipal construction contract, and the ninth cause of action for damaged business reputation. It is well established that compliance with the notice provisions of a municipal contract is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action for damages (see, A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. A.H.A. General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. Tug Hill Construction, Inc. v. County of BroomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. MRW Construction Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rifenburg Construction, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  2. Tougher Industries, Inc. v. Dormitory AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Ridley Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dormitory Auth. of The State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  4. RIFENBURG CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORKAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API