Reviewed September 7, 2026.
In Mancini v. Mormile, 80 AD3d 933 (2011), the Third Department upheld dismissal of claims seeking to hold an owner directly responsible for subcontract work.
The subcontractor lacked contractual privity with the owner for work ordered by the general contractor. As for alleged separate owner-requested extras, the identified invoices had been paid, and the record did not establish additional unpaid work. The court also rejected the asserted quasi-contract and account-stated theories on that record, including the owner's prompt dispute of the demand.
Separate direct promises from project benefits
If an owner orders extra work directly, record who is promising payment, the scope, price and relationship to the existing subcontract. Merely improving the owner's property does not automatically make the owner liable for the general contractor's debt.
Direct contract liability, an account stated, a mechanic's lien and a trust-fund claim have different requirements. This historical decision should not be read as eliminating statutory remedies simply because the subcontractor's contract is with someone else. Preserve payment records, written approvals and all applicable deadlines.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with construction payment claims and defenses. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
