Mendelsohn v. City of New York (19th Precinct)Mendelsohn v. City of New York (19th Precinct)
The court correctly determined that, pursuant to
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to when the work was substantially complete. To the contrary, plaintiff‘s own document, a contractor‘s certificate seeking partial payment dated May 7, 1992, indicates that 98% of the work was complete as of that date. The June 29, 1992 and August 5, 1992 memoranda, and the October 1, 1993 and November 22, 1993 letters, merely show that work incidental to the electrical work on the building, namely a fire alarm system and items on a punch list, was incomplete (see Phillips Constr., 61 NY2d at 951).
Additionally, plaintiff‘s purported claim to recover its guarantee monies pursuant to article 24 of the contract has not been considered here, as it was not raised below, either in the
We have considered plaintiff‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.