You are here: / / Breach of Contract Lawsuit Precluded by Claimant’s Failure to Comply...

Breach of Contract Lawsuit Precluded by Claimant’s Failure to Comply With Notice Requirements Which Were Conditions Precedent—Alleged Misconduct by Defendant Did Not Prevent Compliance with Conditions Precedent—Conditions Precedent Not Waived by Defendant’s Participation In an Attempt to Resolve the Dispute

The Third Department noted that, absent any claim that defendant's misconduct prevented claimant from fulfilling the notice requirements in the contract, the notice requirements were conditions precedent which, because they were not met, precluded the breach of contract lawsuit:

Claimant alleged seven specific items of damages, each of which was subject to contract provisions requiring that notice be provided to defendant within 10 work days and that certain records be kept and submitted to defendant. The contract provided that “[t]he notification and record-keeping provisions of this Contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery” … . No party can prevail on a breach of contract claim if that party has failed to perform a specified condition precedent … . According to the contract, the contractor's failure to supply the required notice and submit the required records is deemed a waiver of any related claim by the contractor, “notwithstanding the fact that [defendant] may have actual notice of the facts and circumstances which comprise such dispute and is not prejudiced by said failure.”

Defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that claimant did not comply with the condition precedent, in that claimant did not provide timely notice for the alleged items of damages and did not timely submit the required records … . In response, claimant did not provide proof that it complied with the notice and record-keeping requirements, but argued that defendant waived noncompliance, had actual knowledge of the disputed items and prevented claimant from complying with those requirements. Those arguments are unavailing. Fahs Constr Group Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 0885, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

You might also like
AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM.
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT-NURSE’S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE NOT CAUSED BY GREATER THAN NORMAL STRESSORS (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE STRUCTURE-LOSS (FIRE-DAMAGE) CLAIM; THE PARTIES WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).
Religious Organization Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Volunteer Under Agency Theory
DAUGHTER’S PETITION TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN FOR HER MOTHER, WHO HAS DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER’S, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Although the Landlord Can Sue Pursuant to the Accelerated Rent Clause and Is... In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence