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
THE CASEWORKER WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THIS “COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A CHILD” PROSECUTION; THE PEOPLE WERE THEREFORE DEEMED TO HAVE HAD CONTROL OVER OR TO HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE CASWORKER’S NOTES; THE NOTES INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE BEFORE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD DEPT).
BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY IS NOT AN ENUMERATED OFFENSE UNDER SORA, THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).
THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE AN INMATE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (RTF) TO PROVIDE SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE ABOUT TO BE RELEASED WITH REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS IN THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY, AS OPPOSED TO WITHIN THE PRISON (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED FATHER’S COUNSEL’S OFFER TO REMAIN AS STANDBY COUNSEL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT WARNING FATHER OF THE DANGERS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION (THIRD DEPT).
Two-Part Inquiry for Determining Whether a Dispute is Arbitrable Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement Clearly Explained and Applied
OWNER OF SEASONAL BUSINESS WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

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 © 2026 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...