"Pay-when-Paid" provision struck down by Appellate Court

The District Court in Nassau County was faced with a claim by a contractor that sought to enforce a mechanic's lien and recover for alleged non-payment under a construction contract.   The contract at issue contained the following provision:

The obligation of Contractor to make any payment under this Agreement, whether a progress or final payment, or for extras or change orders, is subject to the express condition precedent of payment therefor by Owner and Owner's lender. Owner's and Owner's lender's determination of the percentage complete of Subcontractor's Work shall be final and binding and Subcontractor agrees that in no event shall Subcontractor receive payment from Contractor for a greater proportionate value of the Work than what is approved by Owner and Owner's lender.

The Appellate Term held that the provision was a "pay-when-paid" clause and thus, under long settled New York law, was void and unenforceable.  Unfortunately for this contractor-plaintiff the contract also contained a severability clause and six month limitations period.  Therefore, while the pay-when-paid portion was struck down, it did not void the entire agreement by virtue of the severability clause and the Court refused to strike down the six month limitations period.  Because the plaintiff failed to file its claim within six months, the claims were time barred and dismissed.  

The case was Polar Bear Mechanical, Inc. v. Walison Corp.

Supreme Court: Criminal Intent Required for Punitive Damages Under Article 3A

Lien Law Article 3A has become increasingly popular (or unpopular if you are the accused) in construction claims.  In general, Article 3A requires that contractors hold funds they are paid in trust for all beneficiaries of the project and that such funds not be used for a "non-trust purpose" until the claims of all beneficiaries are resolved.  Lien Law Section 77 vests the Court with the power to impose punitive damages in the appropriate case.  But not every case of a trust diversion warrants the imposition of punitive damages.

In Jorge v. Piola Property Management, the Nassau County Supreme Court was faced with a motion seeking to dismiss various portions of a home owner's claim against a contractor including a claim for punitive damages under Article 3A.  The Court granted the motion to the extend of dismissing the claim for punitive damages.  In doing so, it cited to controlling Second Department authority that says a trust diversion claim must include "criminal intent" in order to trigger punitive damages.  Essentially, this allows for a "good faith dispute" defense to the contractor.   Interestingly, the motion was a 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss which appeared to have made while the case was in its infancy.  You have to wonder what the Court would do if facts come out in discovery showing that there was such "criminal intent."  Stay tuned...

Contractor Waived Claims Not Expressly Set Forth in Notice

The First Department of the Appellate Division recently held that a contractor had waived certain claims in connection with a government contract because the contractor did not expressly set forth the claims in an extension of time request.  The decision notes:

The contract governing the construction project required any request for an extension of time filed by petitioner to include a statement, "in detail," that petitioner "waives all claims except for those delineated in the application, and the particulars of any claims which [petitioner] does not agree to waive.

 Apparently, the contractor did not sufficiently identify the claims it wished to preserve when it submitted an extension request.  The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) determined that the contractor had, thus, waived the claims.  The Appellate Division agreed and rejected the contractor's argument that the parties prior course of conduct should support no such waiver.  The Court noted that such and argument (called estoppel) is generally unavailable against government agencies and the particular contract at issue here specifically mentioned that the conduct of the City and its agents could not create an estoppel situation.

The case is a good reminder to contractors to carefully read their contracts and be careful in sending out notices.   When sending out any contract notices it is a good idea to engage counsel to review the contract and the notice and make sure that any possible claims are properly preserved.  It is never too early to engage counsel.  A bit of review and consultation during the project could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars on later litigation.

The case was LAWS Const. Corp. v. CDRB.

Vincent T. Pallaci is the managing member of Kushnick Pallaci PLLC.   His practice concentrates on construction law including contract drafting and review.

Case Law Update: Court holds Ohio Venue Provision in Contract Void under GOL 757

HVS, LLC v Fortney & Weygandt, Inc.

Decided 9/24/15 by the Supreme Court, Rockland County

The issue in this appeal concerns the validity of an arbitration agreement entered into by the parties.

 The parties entered into a written subcontract agreement, wherein the Plaintiff, an electrical company, agreed to furnish all labor and material necessary to complete the electrical scope of the work on the project, which was located in New York.  Delays arose during construction, the parties disputed the revised work schedule, and the Defendant terminated the subcontract and refused to permit Plaintiff to complete its work.  Soon thereafter, Plaintiff filed a mechanics lien with the Rockland County Clerk and filed a Summons and Complaint, seeking damages for breach of contract and for the foreclosure of the lien.  Defendant filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, arguing that pursuant to the subcontract, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was the proper venue for arbitration.

 The Court stated that pursuant to General Obligations Law §757, unless the contract is with a material supplier, any provision in a construction contract which makes the contract subject to the laws of another state and requires any litigation arbitration to be held in another state shall be void and unenforceable.  The Court pointed to the fact that as Plaintiff was not merely a material supplier, the provision requiring that Cuyahoga County, Ohio be the forum governing disputes arising from the agreement was void and unenforceable pursuant to GOL §757.

 The Defendant argued, citing to supportive case law, that the clause preempts GOL §757 as there were numerous out-of-state entities involved in the transaction.  However, the Court was not swayed.  The Court found that unlike the case law cited to by Defendant, the Plaintiff here is a local company, obtained the majority of the materials from local suppliers, and performed all of its work in New York.  Furthermore, although there were suppliers who, as Defendant pointed out, have offices in other states, they all are present in New York as well.  Additionally, all the meetings concerning the project occurred at the project site in New York. 

 The Court related the present case to another New York case, King C Ironwork, Inc. V Burdg, Dunham & Associates Construction Corp., wherein the Judge found the arbitration provision valid except for the forum selection and choice of law provisions.  Thus, keeping in mind that the basic purpose of FAA §2 is for claims to be arbitrated rather than litigated, the Court in the present case severed the improper provision of the arbitration agreement and ordered that the parties proceed with arbitration in New York, rather than in Ohio, and stayed the lien foreclosure action pending the New York arbitration outcome.

Case Law Update: Subcontractor has no Quasi-Contract Claim Directly Against Owner

 MCM Prods. USA, Inc. v Aliusta Design

Decided November 16, 2015 at Sup. Ct., New York County

This case presented the classic issue of whether a subcontractor has a valid cause of action for unjust enrichment against the owner of property, where the governing contract was between the subcontractor and the general contractor.

Here, Plaintiff, the owner of the property at issue, hired and entered into a contract with a general contractor, A.J.S. Project Management Inc. (“AJS”).  AJS then hired various subcontractors, with whom Plaintiff had no contractual relationship with, to assist on the construction on the property.  Certain subcontractors filed mechanic’s liens on the property, based off of money owed to them by AJS.  Plaintiff brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff is not liable to the subcontractors for any money due and owing between them and AJS.  One of the subcontractors, Hudson Concrete Publishing Inc. (“Hudson”) alleged certain counterclaims against Plaintiff, including a claim for unjust enrichment, wherein Plaintiff moved to dismiss Hudson’s counterclaims for failure to state a cause of action.  This decision addresses the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

The Court explained that, as a general rule, a quasi-contractual claim, such as unjust enrichment, is ordinarily precluded where there is the existence of a valid and enforceable contract which governs the events arising out of the same subject matter.  This general rule is applicable to claims brought against non-signatories, precluding quasi-contract claims being brought against third party non-signatories to a contract that covers the same subject matter of the claim. 

Under a quasi-contract claim, “if services were performed at the behest of someone other than the Defendant, the Plaintiff must look to that person for recovery.”  Thus, it is not enough that the Plaintiff received a benefit from Hudson.  The Court ruled that where an express contract exists between the general contractor and the subcontractor, the mere owner of the property where the work is being done may not be held directly liable to the subcontractor under a quasi-contract theory “unless he assented to such an obligation.”  Thus, the sole remedy of a subcontractor lies against the general contractor with whom the contract was entered into with.

Hudson admitted to being hired by AJS, the general contractor, and failed to assert allegations linking Plaintiff to the services it alleges to have performed on Plaintiff’s property.  As Hudson sought payment for services performed under its contract with AJG, the claim is governed by the terms under that contract, thus the quasi-contract claim against the Plaintiff must fail.  

Case Law Update: Contractor's Performance Not Excused

City of Troy, N.Y. v 1776 Sixth Ave., Troy, LLC

Decided November 12, 2015 at App. Div. 3rd Dep’t.

The issue here was whether the language of the contract excused Defendant’s performance by the requisite deadline.  The parties entered into a lease wherein the Defendant was to install an elevator within the premises by March 1, 2009.  Pursuant to the letter of intent entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant, the parties were to work together to identify a suitable location for the elevator. In addition to the letter, an addendum was also subsequently added to the original contract, requiring Plaintiff to provide Defendant with proposed layout plans from Plaintiff’s engineering department and a proposed location for the elevator. Defendant failed to meet the elevator installation deadline.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover¸ inter alia, its monthly rental payments.  Defendant argued that its obligation to perform prior to the installation deadline was excused as, pursuant to the letter of intent and the subsequent amendment, Plaintiff delayed in submitting the location proposals. 

The court found that, contrary to Defendant’s argument, neither the letter of intent nor the subsequent amendment excused its performance of installing the elevator prior to the deadline.  The deadline was an unequivocal term listed in the original contract, not conditioned upon Plaintiff’s approval of the elevator’s location nor upon the submission of the proposed layout plans. 

Case Summary: Staviski v. Christa Constr. Inc. (ADR provision in construction contract)

The parties entered into a subcontract for plaintiff to perform certain remediation work upon the discovery of mold during construction.  An alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) provision was included in the subcontract, which provided that the contractor’s representative could decide all questions arising from the subcontract and the decision shall be binding and conclusive.  A law suit could be commenced if the subcontractor disagreed with the representative’s finding, but the court shall be limited to determining whether the representative acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or grossly erroneous to evidence bad faith. 

This suit arose out of the representative’s rejection of plaintiff’s claim that it was due certain payments on the subcontract.  The representative determined that plaintiff was 30% responsible for the outbreak of mold and therefore the unpaid balance owed to plaintiff was to be offset by 30% of the total damages that defendant incurred to remediate the mold.  The lower court found questions of fact remained and therefore denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. 

            On appeal, defendant claimed that pursuant to the ADR provision, only a limited review was to occur and that by the court finding questions of fact, the court was required to find that the determination had a factual basis and therefore was not arbitrary and capricious.  The Appellate Court disagreed with this conclusion.

            The Court found that the provision at issue called for broader judicial review, similar to that under CPLR 78, not the stricter standards of arbitration review under CPLR 75.  The Court ruled that since the contract embraced a claim of bad faith, it would be inappropriate to accord the representative’s determination the same deference accorded to a discretionary determination made by an administrative agency.  

Decided 1/22/15 at App. Div. 3d Dept.

Case Summary: Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver (claims arising from common wall construction dispute)

The Appellate Court modified the lower court’s decision.  Parties are the owners of adjoining townhouses and defendants made changes to the common structural wall, which is the basis for this suit.  The lower court found that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the 3 year statute of limitations.  However, plaintiff’s claim for trespass resulting from the placement of wiring, along with plaintiff’s statements that defendants routinely trespassed and made changes to plaintiff’s property without permission, and that defendants violated property and easement rights with regard to the common structural wall was found to be sufficient to state a cause of action for trespass.  Furthermore, defendants failed to establish that they were subject to any of the exceptions which would make them not liable for their independent contractor’s negligent acts.

            The Court did not find defendants’ claim that violations of plaintiff’s easement and property rights were time-barred, as defendants’ architect’s application for payment did not conclusively establish the project completion date.  The Court further found that defendants were in violation of Building and Landmarks Code provisions as adequate lateral support was not provided for plaintiff’s property after excavation took place, and that contrary to defendants’ argument, the DOB’s inspection did not conclusively establish that the excavation did not violate such provisions.    

Decided 1/15/2015 at App. Div. 1^st Dept.

Architect that substantially contributes to excavation design in NYC may have strict liability for adjacent property damage

When the Court of Appeals decision in Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway came down in 2012 it signaled a potential avalanche of strict liability claims against persons that "cause an excavation to be made."  The question remained: who causes an excavation to be made?  Clearly the owner of the property and the contractor that performs the excavation "cause it to be made."  The more interesting question has been whether and architect and/or engineer that are involved with excavation "cause the excavation to be made" and, as such, may be held strictly liable under Yenem and Section 3309 of the NYC Building Code.

While the question remains open, the First Department sent out a signal last week in what may be the first appellate division commentary on the issue.  In 87 Chambers, LLC v. 77 Reade, LLC the First Department stated that the engineer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the 3309.4 claim against it was properly denied.  The decision indicates that an engineer may face strict liability under Section 3309, and be a person who "causes an excavation to be made" where the evidence establishes that the design professional "substantially contributed to the design and methodology employed during the excavation process."  In this instance, the court found there were questions of fact as to whether the engineer was such a substantially contributing factor.  However, the reasoning, in this writer's opinion, is a loud signal that design professional do indeed face strict liability and the First Department may have just given us the first outline of the test for liability.  Stay tuned as other departments chime in on this critical issue.

Vincent T. Pallaci is the managing partner of the New York law firm of Kushnick | Pallaci PLLC where his practice concentrates on construction law.  With offices in the New York City and Long Island he serves the construction industry across the State of New York.  His practice includes excavation and property damage litigation.  

Court enforces 6 month contractual limitations period against NYC

Generally, a claim for breach of contract in New York has a 6 year limitations period.  However, parties are generally free to negotiate and shorten the limitations period in their contract.  Such was exactly the case in Dart Mech. Corp. v. City of New York where the contract limited the period to bring claims to 6 months.  In upholding and enforcing the 6 month limitations period, the Court found that six months is not an unreasonably short period (as would have permitted the Court to void the provision).  Dart Mech. Corp. is a good lesson for contractors:  always read your contracts!  Don't assume that what you have experienced in the past is the "rule" in your current and future situations.  

Vincent T. Pallaci is the managing partner of the New York law firm of Kushnick | Pallaci PLLC where his practice concentrates on construction law.  With offices in the New York City metropolitan area and Buffalo, KP serves the construction industry across the State of New York.  

Pursuing and Proving Delay Damages

Recently the Third Department of the Appellate Division issued some interesting and insightful commentary on pursuing and proving a delay claim (see Mascorp, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.).  The Court noted that "a contractor wrongfully delayed by its employer must establish the extent to which its costs were increased by the improper acts because its recovery will be limited to damages actually sustained."  The concept seems pretty simple: to recover there must be actual damages.  Curiously here, the Court found that the plaintiff's own records established not a loss, but a profit.   Though the Court noted the documents established a 13% profit, I wonder whether a higher profit would have been made had the delay not occurred?  If so, wouldn't there have been delay damages not withstanding the profit?  It appears that the plaintiff's expert failed to identify what records it relied upon in reaching his determination that there were delay damages.  The Court stated that "we can find no correlation between the numbers in the reports and the expert's figures."   In concluding that there was no foundation for the damages claimed, the Court found that the plaintiff's expert affidavit was "conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of whether damages were actually sustained."

The lesson to be learned?  Be careful with your expert affidavits and testimony.  Many (MANY) experts like to talk.  They like to explain how they are right and smarter than everyone else.  Unfortunately they don't always explain themselves well and simply get from point A to point B because "they are right."  Work with your experts and make sure they understand how to explain their position and convince others that their position is correct.  Sometimes your expert can be too smart for his or her own good!

Construction Contract Tip: Attorneys' fees are not recoverable, unless...

One of the biggest drawbacks to litigation, or even arbitration, is the cost associated with attorneys.  In New York, a corporation or an LLC must have an attorney in litigation.  Corporations and LLCs are not permitted to represent themselves in Court in the State of New York.  This leads to a difficult decision one a dispute develops on a construction project: is it cost effective to proceed to litigation or should I just cut my losses?  Take for example a $4,500 dispute.  Because it is under $5,000, you can proceed (in most counties) through small claims court.  Small claims court is not overly expensive.  You can typically pay all of the fees and even hire an attorney to handle the hearing for you fairly cheaply.  Even if you are sitting in court for 4 hours the day of the hearing you probably still will not pay more than $1,500 for everything (fees included).  But that is still 1/3 of your money.  A claim for more than $5,000 and you are proceeding to the Civil Court (in NYC), the District Court (on Long Island) or perhaps the County Court (upstate).  Much more than $5,000 and you could end up in Supreme Court.

Litigation in the Courts means Court appearances, depositions, pleadings, motions and discovery.  That means lots of time for attorneys and lots of money spent.  Complex construction litigation can easily cost more than $100,000.  Even basic uncomplicated litigation (if such a thing exists) can easily cost over $10,000.  It is with these smaller amounts that there is what I call a gray area.  If you are owed $20,000 do you really want to spent $18,000 to recover it?  Keep in mind there are no guarantees.  You could spend $18,000 and lose.  You could spend $18,000 and win but be left with an collectible judgment.  What if you spend $21,000 to recover the $20,000?  It easily gets to the point where it is not cost effective to proceed.

But if you win at the end of the day you get all your costs back right?  WRONG.  New York follows the "American Rule" whereby all parties to litigation absorb their own costs.  This means even if you win, even if you were 100% right and should have never had to litigate, you eat your own costs.  Doesn't seem fair right?  Well, luckily, there is an option.  While the default rule is you pay your own fees, you can change that rule by contract.  So, first things first, make sure you have a written contract!  The days of the handshake agreement in construction should be long gone.  A written contract is essential to protecting your rights.  Even the most well intentioned contractor can have things go wrong and you need protection.  Now that you have your written contract, you simply need to insert a provision that says the prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorneys fees from the other party.  That's it.  If you win, you can recover your (reasonable) attorneys' fees. With an attorneys' fee provision in your contract it is now much easier to decide to chase after that $20,000 debt.  It also makes the pain of long drawn out (and expensive) litigation a bit less.

There is another advantage to an attorneys' fee provision aside from merely recovering your fees.  Sometimes there is an unwritten rule that the best defense for a party with no real defense is to try and "outspend" the opponent.  Parties will think twice about dragging out questionable litigation and driving up your costs if they know that they will be paying those costs back at the end of the day (in addition to paying their own costs).  Of course there is a downside: if you are the one in the wrong you may be the one stuck paying fees.  But it is a risk that you have to decide and weigh.

Vincent T. Pallaci is a partner with the New York law firm of Kushnick | Pallaci, PLLC.  With offices in Buffalo and the NYC Metro area, KP provides legal services to the construction industry across the State of New York.

New York Construction Collections

Collection is a part of every business, but in the construction industry it sometimes seems like collection is 90% of the business with 10% devoted to the actual construction.  If you plan for collection from the beginning, you will significantly increase your chances of recovering the money you are due.

Step One

Plan for collection in your contracts.  The default rule in New York is that parties to litigation bear their own attorneys' fees unless the contract (or a statute) provides otherwise.  In your garden variety payment dispute no statute exists in New York that would provide you with an attorneys' fee award.  Therefore, your contract should provide that you can recover your costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in the event you have to pursue litigation or arbitration.

Your contract should also explicitly state when payment is due.  You should be permitted to suspend work in the event you are not paid within a reasonable number of days after payment is due (e.g. 10 days) and charge interest at a reasonable rate (e.g. 1% per month) on all unpaid amounts.

One other area to consider in your contract stage is whether you are going to require a personal guarantee.  Personal guarantees will significantly increase the odds that you are able to recover any unpaid amounts.  Personal guarantees are more common in material supplier contracts than labor subcontractors but remember: contracts are a negotiation anything is possible if you ask.

Step Two

Actively monitor accounts and put a procedure in place for addressing unpaid balances.  This ties into your contractual obligations and helps to make sure you do not miss deadlines.  Your contract probably provides that you must provide notice before any steps can be taken to pursue a claim or suspend work.  Before you can send a notice you have to know that payment is past due.  Surprisingly, many in the construction industry will not do anything within the first few days of payment being bast due.  This is a mistake.  Once payment is past due, a notice should go out immediately to the debtor.  If applicable, the notice can go to those above it in the contract chain as well (e.g. the owner or general contractor).  Pre-lien notices are not required in New York like they are in other states but that does not mean that a letter right after payment is due is useless.

At this stage you also need to determine whether your project is covered by New York's prompt payment act.  If it is, there are additional obligations and rights for both creditor and debtor.  For example, if the debtor is not paying your full invoice, he must provide you with written notice within 10 days explaining why. The prompt payment act also provides for expedited arbitration.

If your payment letter goes ignored, its time to kick up the heat and move on to step three.  Remember, when it comes to construction collections there is a delicate balance.  You don't want to put on the pressure too soon because it could interrupt the project and cause bigger problems and could also damage valuable business relationships.  At the same time, you don't want to wait too long because a number of rights (explained below) could be impaired.

Step Three

Once the payment letter fails to trigger payment, you have three options to increase the pressure.  You can pursue one or all three and pursue them at the same time or in any order.  First, you have mechanic's lien rights and should exercise them at the proper time (see Article "To Lien or Not to Lien: That is the Question".  A mechanic's lien must filed within 4 months on a single family home, 8 months on any other commercial project, 30 days of completion and acceptance on a public project and 90 days for retainage.  A mechanic's lien puts pressure on everyone above you in the contract chain and usually provides security for your payment.

Second, if there is a payment bond, you should submit a payment bond claim.  Every bond is different in terms of how notice must be served and upon whom it must be served.  However, every bond has a provision stating that notice must be provided within X days of the claim going unpaid.  To be safe, a payment bond claim notice should go out on every project once payments are past due 30 days.

Third, exercise your rights under Article 3A of the Lien Law.  Article 3A is probably the must underutilized set of tools for construction collection.  Most people will immediately defer to their lien rights or to rights under a payment bond.  But liens and bonds don't always shake money loose.  Article 3A can be the biggest stick in the tool box.  Consider this: Article 3A provides for personal liability of corporate principals, potential punitive damages and attorneys' fees awards.  And don't forget, Article 3A liability is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  Exercising your Article 3A rights means acting fast.  The first move is to serve a demand under Lien Law Section 76.  From there, your must file your 3A lawsuit within 1 year of the time that you completed the project (or if you are a subcontractor from the time that the GC completed the project).

Step Four

When all else fails, its time to commence litigation.  In construction litigation all attorneys are not created equally.  Some attorneys specialize in personal liability, others in bankruptcy, some in criminal law and, of course, some in construction.  Don't expect that because you know an attorney that he or she is the best for your construction collection claim.  An attorney with experience and knowledge of New York construction law will be able to most effectively utilize the Lien Law, including mechanic's liens and Article 3A, as well as the Prompt Payment Act (and a few other tricks of the trade) to maximize the chances you recover on your unpaid debt. Remember, don't wait - liens must be foreclosed upon within 1 year of filing and 3A trust diversion claims must be brought within 1 year.

Vincent T. Pallaci is a partner with the New York law firm of Kushnick Pallaci, PLLC where his practice concentrates on construction law.  With offices in Long Island and Buffalo, New York, KP provides counsel to the construction industry in every county in New York.

New York Contractors Don't Miss Out on Getting Paid!

The biggest mistake contractors make is missing key deadlines for securing their payment rights.  Lien deadlines, payment bond deadlines and short lawsuit statutes of limitations are critical to securing your ability to recover payment.  This guide can help prevent you from missing the key payment deadlines.  

Watch out for local laws limiting your period to bring a claim

The general rule in New York is that a contractor can bring a claim for breach of contract within six (6) years after the claim accrues.  There are situations, however, when the general rule is not followed.  One example is where the contract shortens the limitations period.  Another, which was recently dealt with by the Appellate Division in Frank Tricarico Contrs. Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, is where the particular claim is limited by statute (even a local statute).  In Frank Tricarico the contractor apparently performed work for the City of New Rochelle.  After the claim was filed, the City filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim because it was not brought within the one year limitation period provided for in the City Charter for the City of New Rochelle.  The claim was dismissed, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal and the contractor lost its breach of contract claim.


Vincent T. Pallaci is an attorney with the New York law firm of Kushnick Pallaci, PLLC.  His practice focuses primarily on the areas of construction law.  Mr. Pallaci can be reached at (631) 752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.  You can also visit our firm site at www.nyconstructionlaw.com