Case ID: misc_49/html/0485-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Greenbaum, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wolff Greenberg et al., Appellants, v. Israel Mendelson et al., Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    February, 1906.)
    Building and construction contracts — Submission of questions of performance to third person — Architect's certificate as condition precedent; Unreasonable withholding of certificate: Extra work — Right to additional compensation — Necessity for written authority.
    In an action upon a building contract which makes an architect’s certificate a condition precedent to payment, a waiver of the certificate, or an unreasonable .refusal of the architect to furnish one, must be shown.
    A provision in a building contract that orders for extra work shall be in writing may be waived.
    Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, thirteenth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendants.
    Marks & Marks, for appellants.
    Feltenstein & Rosen stein, for respondents.
   Greenbaum, J.

The first cause of action was properly dismissed. There was no proof of waiver of the architect’s certificate, and the architect, who was called as plaintiffs’ witness, testified that the work was not completed, indicating numerous defects and deficiencies in the work. There was, therefore, affirmative proof of nonperformancé and there was no evidence tending to establish an unreasonable refusal on the part of the architect to furnish his certificate.

A different situation, however, exists with respect to the second cause of action. The court excluded testimony preferred by plaintiffs, tending to establish the installation of washtubs for defendants, upon the ground that the written contract between the parties for the bathtubs, basins and sinks provided that no work should be considered as extra unless ordered in writing or accepted on a written estimate.

Aside from the fact that the putting in of washtubs would not necessarily be construed as extra work within the contemplation of the parties, it is well settled that a provision that orders for extra work shall be in writing may be waived. Abells v. City of Syracuse, 7 App. Div. 501; Weisbrod v. Dembosky, 25 Misc. Rep. 485; Porter v. Swan, 17 N. Y. Supp. 351.

It was error to exclude the proofs offered in support of the second cause of action.

The judgment should be affirmed as to the first cause of action and reversed as to the second cause of action and a new trial ordered in respect thereto, without costs to either party.

Scott and Giegeeich, ,TJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed as to first cause of action and reversed as to second cause of action and new trial ordered in respect thereto, without costs to either party.