You are here: / / PLAINTIFF AGREED TO PROVIDE POURED, NOT PUMPED, CONCRETE AND SPECIFICALLY...

PLAINTIFF AGREED TO PROVIDE POURED, NOT PUMPED, CONCRETE AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF TACTILE STRIPS FROM THE SUBCONTRACT; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF PROVIDE PUMPED CONCRETE AND INSTALL TACTILE STRIPS; THESE CHANGES WERE MATERIAL BUT NOT “CARDINAL” SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF’S PERFORMANCE WAS EXCUSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s (Banton’s) requested changes to the contract were not a “cardinal changes” such that Banton breached the contract. The plaintiff, pursuant the subcontract, provided concrete for the construction project. The original subcontract indicated plaintiff would “pour” not “pump” the concrete and would not install “tactile strips.” Subsequently, Banton requested that the concrete be pumped and that tactile strips be installed. The parties then agreed to proceed with those changes:

Supreme Court found that Banton’s request to modify the concrete delivery method from pouring to pumping, in light of the express subcontract exclusion, was a material change to the scope of plaintiff’s work under the agreement. Although we agree with the court that this was a material change, we do not find it to be a cardinal change such that Banton can be found to have breached the contract … . A cardinal change is one that affects “‘the essential identity or main purpose of the contract,’ such that it ‘constitutes a new undertaking'” … . The main purpose of this subcontract was to complete the concrete work for the project, and we do not find that the changes in the work requested by Banton fundamentally changed this purpose so as to constitute a cardinal change that would relieve plaintiff of its obligation to perform under the subcontract … . This conclusion is further supported by the fact that plaintiff was ready, willing and able to implement these changes and continue to perform under the subcontract, but only if its price was met. McCarthy Concrete, Inc. v Banton Constr. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02168, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here it was determined that the changes to the subcontract requested by the defendant were “material” but they were not “cardinal” such that plaintiff’s performance was excused. Plaintiff had specifically excluded “pumped,” as opposed to “poured,” concrete and the installation of tactile strips from the subcontract. Defendant subsequently requested “pumped” concrete and the installation of tactile strips. Essentially the parties agreed to proceed with the changes. Supreme Court should not have held plaintiff was not obligated to perform.

You might also like
GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer
Lack of Standing Defense Waived By Absence from Answer—Objections to Authority to Sign Lease Waived by Ratification of the Signed Documents
Restitution Hearing Required/Insufficient Proof to Substantiate the Amount/Conclusory Admission by Defendant Not Enough
UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).
THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF COUNTY, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE NURSING HOME WHERE DECEDENT WAS CARED... THE USE OF ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES (ELD’S) TO MONITOR THE HOURS AND...