Opinion ID: 2470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial before the District Court

Text: The matter was tried before the district court (Robert W. Sweet, Judge ) without a jury on September 19, 20, and 25, 2006. On September 25, at the close of Precision's case, the Sureties' counsel moved to dismiss Precision's complaint on the ground that the evidence demonstrates that the work was substantially complete at least one year prior to the commencement of this action. Sept. 25 a.m. Tr. 119, Precision Stone, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 04 Civ. 09996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2006) (Doc. No. 22) (Sept. 25 a.m. Tr.). In opposing that motion, Precision's counsel argued that the substantial completion language was not contained in the bond, which referred only to when Fuller ceased work on said project. That's the language, ceased work. Id. at 120; see also Payment Bond 2 (noting that an action pursuant to the bond is untimely if commenced after the expiration of one (1) year following the date on which [Fuller] ceased work on the project). By oral decision dated September 25, 2006, the district court denied the Sureties' motion. In the court's view, the punch list was part of the original contract and thus [t]he punch list is a completion of the contract. Sept. 25 p.m. Tr. 4, Precision Stone, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 04 Civ. 09996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2006) (Doc. No. 24) (Sep. 25 p.m. Tr.). On this basis, the court denied the Sureties' motion to dismiss because there was work performed under the contract on the punch list within one year of Precision filing suit, id. at 5, thereby requiring the Sureties to proceed with their defense. Following the close of the Sureties' case and as set forth in the district court's written opinion, the court reiterated that [t]he punch list established that as of March 2004, Fuller was still performing physical work on the Project and had consequently not ceased work. Precision Stone I, 472 F.Supp.2d at 581. Based in part on this finding, the district court concluded that Precision was entitled to payment under the bond. See id. at 581-82. Specifically, the district court concluded that Precision was entitled to payment in the amount it expended [in labor and material in connection with the project for which it had yet to be paid], less the credit resulting from the substitution of Berardi with respect to the installation of the pavers. Id. at 582. This credit resulted in the district court calculating Precision's damages to be approximately $40,000 less than Precision sought, due to Fuller's payments to . . . Berardi . . . for its overtime expenses in laying paving stones, and the one dollar per square foot price difference between Precision's quote and the amount paid to Berardi for laying the stones. Precision Stone II, 2007 WL 1975487, at , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49274, at . In other words, this additional amount (the Additional Berardi Payment) constitutes that portion of the payment to Berardi that exceeded the payment Fuller would have made to Precision had Precision completed the remainder of the subcontracted work for the initial per-square-footage price without any overtime payments. Ultimately, the district court granted judgment to Precision in the total amount of $100,077.69, without prejudgment interest. Precision Stone I, 472 F.Supp.2d at 582. [3]