Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated January 30, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated January 30, 2012, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Summary resolution of this action is unwarranted since the record so far developed raises but does not resolve several material triable issues, including those involving the adequacy of the work undertaken by plaintiff pursuant to the written construction contract between it and the defendant law firm. Such issues are not amenable to summary disposition, and this whether plaintiff's efforts to perform the contract are adjudged under the "substantial completion" standard set forth in section 7.5 of the contract or, instead, the "satisfactory completion" standard referenced in the guaranty letter subsequently sent by the law firm. We note that the "satisfactory completion" standard, if found to be applicable, would require that any subjective evaluation made by defendant(s) as to the quality and completion of plaintiff's work be done "reasonably and in accordance with fairness and good faith" (Gearty v City of New York, 171 NY 61, 71-72 [1902]; Edgewater Constr. Co. v 81 & 3 of Watertown, Inc., 252 AD2d 951, 952 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: April 16, 2013