Rockmore Contr. Corp. v City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 03262 [238 AD3d 681]
May 29, 2025
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, July 9, 2025


[*1]
 Rockmore Contracting Corp., Appellant,
v
City of New York, Respondent.

[Recalled and vacated, see 2025 NY Slip Op 06669.]

Cullen and Dykman LLP, Uniondale (Jean-Pierre D. Van Lent of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Drucker of counsel), for respondent.


HEADNOTES


Contracts - Construction Contracts - Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Claims for Delay Damages Relating to Extended Field Office Costs and Site Overhead - Expert Improperly Used Bid Amount in Calculation

Contracts - Construction Contracts - Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Claim for Weather Delay Damages - Claim Excluded by Contract and Not Solely Caused by Defendant

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about September 5, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for delay damages related to extended field office costs, extended site overhead, and weather, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claims for extended field office costs and extended site overhead because its expert improperly used the bid amount in calculating those claims (see Five Star Elec. Corp. v A.J. Pegno Constr. Co., Inc./Tully Constr. Co., Inc., 209 AD3d 464, 464 [1st Dept 2022]). "It is well established that prebid estimates made by the contractor to compute a bid price are not a valid basis for computing recovery" (Najjar Indus. v City of New York, 87 AD2d 329, 332 [1st Dept 1982], affd 68 NY2d 943 [1986]).

The court also properly dismissed plaintiff's weather delay damages claim, which was excluded by the parties' construction contract and was not solely caused by defendant (see Henick-Lane, Inc. v 616 First Ave. LLC, 214 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2023]). Concur—Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Kapnick, Gesmer, Shulman, JJ.