Case Name: Advanced Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Seaboard Surety Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-05-03
Citations: 139 A.D.3d 424
Docket Number: 
Parties: Advanced Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., Appellant, v Seaboard Surety Company, Respondent.
Judges: Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
Advanced Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., Appellant, v Seaboard Surety Company, Respondent.
[29 NYS3d 166]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 5, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for delay damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff presented no evidence that any material delay in the construction project was attributable to the nonparty prime contractor for whose benefit defendant issued a payment bond (see Triangle Sheet Metal Works v Merritt & Co., 79 NY2d 801 [1991]).
In any event, the subcontract contains a "no damages for delay" clause, and plaintiff failed to meet its heavy burden of establishing an exception to the rule that such a clause will be enforced (see LoDuca Assoc., Inc. v PMS Constr. Mgt. Corp., 91 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2012]). As the motion court found, the delays that plaintiff seeks to impute to the prime contractor constitute, at most, "inept administration" or "poor planning," and do not, as plaintiff contends, evince bad faith on the prime contractor's part (see id.). Nor, contrary to plaintiff's contention, were the delays uncontemplated, and, in any event, under the contract, plaintiff assumed the risk for all delay damages, "whether contemplated or uncontemplated."
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.