Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In Erie Materials, Inc. v. Universal Group of New York, Inc., 101 AD3d 1529 (2012), the Third Department affirmed a supplier's recovery against a public-project payment-bond surety. The subcontractor had falsely claimed that it paid the supplier, then left without paying.
The supplier established its initial entitlement to judgment with testimony and records showing that it furnished $46,512 in materials for the project. The court rejected the asserted requirement that every item be physically delivered to and installed at the project site.
Fees require more than winning
The court also upheld an attorney-fee award. Under State Finance Law § 137(4)(c), the court may award reasonable fees to either party where the original claim or defense lacks a substantial basis in fact or law. An unsuccessful defense alone does not satisfy that standard.
Suppliers should retain orders, invoices, project identification and payment records. Contractors and sureties should investigate the actual disputed amount and supporting evidence. This historical decision does not eliminate timely notice, claimant eligibility or the other requirements of a bond claim.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with surety and payment-bond litigation. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.