Cornacchia Architects & Planners P.C. v Manhattan Schoolhouse LLC

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on April 24, 2026

Index No. 655272/2017

Ariel D. Chesler, J.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a contract dispute as Plaintiff Cornacchia Architects and Planners P.C. ("plaintiff") move to get paid for services rendered and work performed. Defendant The Manhattan Schoolhouse LLC Formerly Known as KFDJ Holdings, LLC ("defendant") opposes the requested relief and cross moves for damages of work not performed.

The amended complaint asserts three causes of action for breach of contract as well as claims for attorneys' fees and punitive damages (Amended Complaint [NYSCEF Doc. No. 153]). The first cause of action alleges that plaintiff performed and/or caused to be performed architectural design professional and construction management services as required by the Agreement, that $32,390.45 became due and owing, and that defendant breached the Agreement by paying $23,281.39 for services, leaving an unpaid balance of $9,109.06 (Id., at 1-11). The second cause of action alleges that the reasonable value of construction services performed on the project was the sum of $285,187.71, that payment in the amount of $190,000.47 was received, and that defendant owes plaintiff the sum of $81,300.75 (Id., at 12-19). The third cause of action alleges that special inspection services were performed in connection with the project, in which the sum of $3,750.00 was due and owing and that $250.00 of this amount has not been [*2]paid (Id., at 20-27).

Defendant answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim seeking $100,000 in damages based on allegations that plaintiff breached the Agreement and the revised budget by failing to (i) provide certain construction and other services, (ii) comply with certain local rule and regulations, (iii) maintain the project schedule, and (iv) properly oversee and administer the project (Answer pg. 53 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 10]).

After the completion of discovery and filing of the note of issue, defendant made a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Ultimately, in an Order dated November 18, 2021, summary judgment was granted as follows: defendant was granted summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the fourth (attorney's fees) and fifth (punitive damages) causes of action; and plaintiff was granted summary judgment as to liability on the first (architectural services) and second (construction services) causes of action; and the plaintiff was granted summary judgment on the third cause of action (inspection services).

What remains before the Court are the issues of damages for the first and second cause of action and defendant's counterclaim. Specifically, the motion Court explicitly found that for the first cause of action, defendant did not submit any evidence that plaintiff did not perform the work and summary judgment was granted (11.18.21 Decision pg. 5 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 216]). For the second cause of action the motion Court found that evidence was presented that the work was performed by third parties, and that plaintiff paid a third party contractor - Mylestone - directly for the construction services, which were to be reimbursed by the defendant under their Agreement and in accordance with the project budget and summary judgment was granted (Id.). These findings ultimately reject the basis for defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract that argue that plaintiff did not perform work that was performed by it's affiliate Mylestone. To the extent other arguments remain for the breach of contract counterclaim such as whether the work performed as required under the Agreement, they will be addressed herein.

This damages trial spanned across 3 days from July 28, 2025, to July 30, 2025. Each transcript is uploaded to NYSCEF and will be cited using the date of the trial and the indication "Tr." At trial, the Court heard testimony from plaintiff, defendant and Mr. Daniel Christian of Mylestone. Initially, it is important to note that the Court is not ignorant to the very apparent hostility and combativeness that is persistent between the parties, specifically over the course of a case that has spanned 9 plus years long.

While the Court generally finds all witnesses were credible and forthcoming, the Court has difficulty crediting specifically defendant's testimony in full. She tailored her testimony in a way that would shade the facts in a light more favorable to their own overall narrative (Gass v. Gass, 42 AD3d 393, 394 [1st Dept 2007] [appropriate to look to motives in evaluating credibility]). Although this is normal and to be expected in a breach of contract trial, defendant gave additional reasons to discount her testimony during the trial. For example, defendant's manner of testifying was at times contradictory and unhelpful as the transcript is riddled with responses in variations of "I don't recall" and "it's not coming to mind."^FN1 She demonstrated a much weaker memory for facts that were potentially harmful to her case than those that were helpful. Taken together, these undercut the Court's ability to fully believe her testimony.

[*3]DISCUSSION

A party asserting a claim for a breach of contract must establish (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the party's own performance under the contract; (3) the other party's breach of the contract; and (4) resulting damages (US Bank Natl. Assn. v Lieberman, 98 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept. 2012]). This burden falls upon any party claiming breach of contract whether that is the plaintiff's case in principle or sought through a counterclaim. Damages are not presumed from the existence of a breach of a contract and must be proven with competent, admissible evidence (U.S. Bank N.A. as Tr. for CMLTI 2007-AR1 v Schwartz, 2025 NY Slip Op 25271 [Sup Ct Dec. 8, 2025]). The measure of damages is calculated by the contract price, less amounts paid by the defendants, less the defendants' cost to complete the project (Pratt General Contrators v Trappey, 177 AD2d 566, 567 [2nd Dept. 1991] [citing New Era Homes Corp. Forster, 299 NY 303, 307 [1949]]).

I. Basic Architectural Services

As discussed above, the motion Court already found that there was an existence of a contract by way of the Agreement the parties entered into; the plaintiff performed under their contract; and the defendant breached the contract for this cause of action. This Court must now assess the amount of damages that should be granted given that a breach of contract was found.

Regarding the first cause of action, plaintiff states that they performed basic architectural and design services pursuant to the Agreement including initial prep work, site visits, design working with schematics, and measuring and preparing plans for the project. They even submitted these plans to the New York City Department of Buildings ("DOB") and the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") prior to starting construction which were then approved (7.28.25 Tr. 23, 24). Plaintiff further asserts that six (6) invoices^FN2 were issued for the work, and only partial payment was made leaving the remaining balance of $9,109.06 (Invoices for Basic Services, Pl. Ex. 11; 7.28.25 Tr. 57-58).

At trial, defendant focused on the fact that the invoices were not detailed and did not outline the specific work that was performed (7.29.25 Tr. 21-25). Defendant also argues that on the July 19, 2016, Invoice for Basic Services (Invoice # 4) there was an additional 14 hours' worth of compensation being sought for "field visits, coordination with contractors, [and] bidding for the job" that plaintiff performed wherein he doesn't recall receiving approval to perform said work (Id. at 26-27). On cross, defendant testified that she does not recall if she ever objected to these invoices or charges in writing (7.30.25 Tr. 266). Defendant does not offer any further argument as to this cause of action in their written summations.

Here, the Court finds plaintiff's testimony credible about the basic architectural and design services that were performed and that the agreed upon calculated contract price was evidenced through their produced invoices that defendant did not object to; that the defendants [*4]only paid invoice's #1 - #3 and that for this cause of action the defendants did not incur any additional cost to complete this portion of the project. At trial and in their summations, Defendant submits no evidence that plaintiff did not perform these basic architectural and design services and thus, upon searching the record, the Court finds Plaintiff proved their resulting damages and should be awarded $9,109.06 plus statutory interest in damages as to the first cause of action.

II. Construction Services

As discussed above, the motion Court already found that there was an existence of a contract by way of the Agreement the parties entered into; the plaintiff performed under their contract; and the defendant breached the contract for this cause of action. This Court must now assess the amount of damages that should be granted given that a breach of contract was found.

Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to pay the agreed upon sum of $77,903.22^FN3 for construction services provided by plaintiff based of an agreed upon price of construction in the amount of $285,187.71. At trial, plaintiff provided invoices and testimony about all the work that was performed in accordance with the Agreement, including any additional work. Plaintiff testified to the demolition work and construction work that all took place along with production of various updated invoices which reflect the status of the work being done as time progressed. Plaintiff also called Mr. Christian of Mylestone who also testified to all the required work that was performed in accordance with the Agreement. Plaintiff also testified to a number of credits they gave to the defendant for work they failed to perform upon completion of their services. Specifically, plaintiff has credited defendant $12,323 for cabinetry work not performed; $750 for glass vision panel in doors not installed; $575 for vinyl stair treads not installed; $238.50 for overhead/profit and insurance on the same; and $3,397.99^FN4 for the amount Vanwell Electronics ("Vanwell") charged defendant for the fire alarm system (Pl. Sum. 5 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 237]).

Defendant argues that even if the Court finds that the work was performed by plaintiff it was not performed in accordance with their Agreement. Specifically, defendant claims plaintiff failed to perform the work within a specific timeframe, that the subcontractors work was substandard and incomplete causing failed inspections, and that lower quality materials^FN5 were used. Defendant further claims that there was additional work performed that was never agreed upon and that the contract budget remains as originally agreed to in the amount of $257,369.21.

While the motion court seemingly already addressed this issue, at trial defendant tried to, again, claim additional work was performed outside of the agreed upon contract and plaintiff did not have express permission to perform said work. For further and final clarity on this specific issue - at trial it was presented that defendant ultimately signed off on and agreed to a specific payment schedule which included said additional work. Specifically, on or around August 31, [*5]2016 defendant wrote in an email to plaintiff:

"This is our last and final offer:

-$25K upon passing construction inspection

-$31K upon completion of punch list with deductions made for work not performed

-$8.4K upon plumbing sign off

-$3.5K upon completion of stair treads

-$15k upon fire alarm sign off... " (Pl. Ex. 27, Bate Stamp 001343)

To which plaintiff responded that they agreed. Defendant even testified at trial that their main concern was getting the school open and "we wanted the work done and that's why we said let's take their number and let's try to move along and get work done" (7.30.25 Tr. 241). The Court finds that defendant was aware of the additional work, consented to it, and that plaintiff is entitled to payment for the additional work performed.

Yet, in order to address the amount of damages due and owned to plaintiff, the Court must first address the defendant's individual counterclaims to determine if they are entitled to any offset in damages and owed any credits.

a. Timeframe Breach of Contract Counterclaim

Defendant argues that the work was to be performed on an expedited basis for the school to be open for the Fall 2016 term (7.30.25 Tr. 92-93). Defendant states that Plaintiff failed to perform the work it was obligated to according to their Agreement and the schedule to perform (Project Schedule, Def. Ex. 4). Specifically, at trial the parties stipulated on the record that the deadlines in the project schedule were not met (7.29.25 Tr. 121; Project Schedule, Def. Ex. 4). Defendant stated that prior to the end of July she recalled having conversations with plaintiff about her concerns about the speed of the project (7.29.25 Tr. 122). Defendant argues that these delays triggered various issues with subcontractors and inspections. In their summation defendant highlights that the delay in construction resulted in "some students withdrawing their enrollment and an overall delay in the operations of the entire school at a financial loss to the Defendant" (Def. Sum. 1-2 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 238]).

Plaintiff testified they submitted the appropriate documents to the Department of Buildings on the May 20th deadline (7.28.25 Tr. 19). While plaintiff does acknowledge that the work was not completed by the original agreed upon date and that the projected timeline was not realistic, they do maintain that by early September 2016 the work was substantially done and what remained was a punch list and FDNY approval of the fire alarm system. Both plaintiff and Mr. Christian testified to the demolition and construction work that took place and that eventually the work was completed and the school was able to open.

Here, the burden has now shifted, and defendant must prove there was a breach of contract. The Court has already found that there is (1) an existence of a contract between the parties; (2) that the defendant performed by way of payment to plaintiff but this Court finds defendant failed to prove that plaintiff breached their contract on the grounds of timeliness. While there is no dispute that the project was not completed within the original and agreed upon timeline it was also established that that timeline and payment schedule was mutually extended (Pl. Ex. 27, Bate Stamp 001343). There is also contradicting testimony about whether the school was actually able to open on schedule. It appears the school was able to still open in time for the fall semester, albeit with some added precautions such as having the fire guards present (7.30.25 [*6]Tr. 210-211).

Additionally, even if the Court were to find the plaintiff breached the contract, defendant failed to establish specific damages for the Court to take into consideration. Defendant states they suffered a financial loss from students withdrawing but fails to provide competent and admissible evidence of the withdrawals or the amount of tuition that was lost from said withdrawals and at trial could not recall how many families actually withdrew (7.29.25 Tr. 143). Therefore, the Court cannot grant any credits to the defendant based on the failure to provide evidence.

b. Substandard Work Breach of Contract Counterclaim

Defendant contends that they are entitled to an offset of the amount owed to plaintiff because they had to bring in outside contractors and a handyman to complete the work plaintiff and their subcontractors either failed to perform or performed poorly. Specifically, defendant claims that she had to pay around $8,000 to the company Vanwell to do the fire alarm work (7.29.25 Tr. 144-145). Defendant claimed to hire Theodore Galitza, a handyman to do the painting of the schoolhouse, patchwork, the ceiling tiles, the windows and to fix the flooring and floorboards for approximately $8,000 (7.30.25 Tr. 176-177). Defendant also claims that in total they paid around $7,000 to $8,000 to outside plumbers to repair plumbing issues (7.30.25 Tr. 186).

Plaintiff argues that all work that was not performed was already credited to the defendant as discussed above (7.28.25 Tr. 66-69). Plaintiff testified at trial about the work Vanwell performed and produced Vanwell's invoice for $3,397.99 which they have already credited to defendant (7.28.25 Tr. 70-71; Pl. Ex. 13). Plaintiff further testified as to the status of the items that were on the punch list at the time of August 12, 2016, stating that although they were not completed, they were substantially performed on and eventually completed (7.28.25 Tr. 96-103). Mr. Christian also testified to the demolition work, interior construction work and the punch list items Mylestone performed and completed on or around September 2016 (7.29.25 Tr. 56-68). Specifically, Mr. Christian claimed the space was completed by the time he finished working and that he had visited the school and witnessed it being operational with staff working and children attending (7.29.25 Tr. 70-71).

Again, the burden has shifted, and defendant must prove there was a breach of contract. The Court has already found that there is (1) an existence of a contract between the parties; (2) that the defendant performed by way of payment to plaintiff but this Court finds defendant failed to prove that plaintiff breached their contract on the grounds of substandard or incomplete work. At trial Defendant did not proffer any competent proof that the extra work she claimed needed to be done was indeed necessary. "In an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract, the proper measure of damages is the fair and reasonable market price for correcting the defective installation" (Ferreira v. Saccento, 286 AD2d 366, 366 [2nd Dept 2001]). Here, not only did defendant not recall whether certain work was completed by her separately hired individuals or by plaintiff, she also did not call a single witness or expert to corroborate her testimony of the work they performed and why that work was needed (7.30.25 Tr. 187). Even if the Court did find that there was a breach defendant also failed to proffer competent and admissible evidence of damages incurred and payments made for remedial work that was fair and reasonable.

It is up to the Court to determine the weight of the defendant's testimony given that no receipts, invoice, nor proof of payment was provided outside of a few checks made out to the [*7]handyman. The Court can give defendant's testimony little to no weight. The Court notes the number of times defendant could not recall specific details regarding the additional work for which she is seeking credits. Notably, it is suspicious that while only a few checks for the handyman were admitted into evidence defendant claimed that she separately paid around $8,000 to Vanwell, around $8,000 her handyman, and around $8,000 to the additional plumbers.

The only possible credit the Court can consider giving the defendant would be $7,720 in the amount of money defendant paid to the handyman Mr. Galitza, however the Court finds that defendant's testimony along with the presented checks is not proof enough of work that was necessary and actually performed by Mr. Galitza in relation to this project as opposed to his general handyman duties. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to any offset credits.

i. Fireguard Credits

Defendant claims the sprinkler system failed inspection three times: first because the sprinkler heads were painted over; second because the sprinkler covers were missing; and the third failed inspection triggered a special inspection (7.29.25 Tr. 157-161). Defendant further asserts that this special inspection resulted in the school obtaining a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ("TCO") as opposed to a full Certificate of Occupancy ("CO") which resulted in their need to hire Total Fire Protection for fireguard services because of the faulty sprinkler system but doesn't recall the exact amount paid for the services (Def. Ex. 8^FN6; 7.30.25 Tr. 160-162, 174-177).

Plaintiff makes an argument that the defendant is not entitled to a credit for the fireguard services retained during the time prior to receiving approval from the FDNY, specifically because the review process in general takes a while and that upon review by the FDNY approval was not granted due to errors in the application form which was completed and consequently corrected by defendant's expediter, the Rizzo Group (7.28.25 Tr. 18, 32, 39-40). Plaintiff asserts that due to these delays caused by the Rizzo Group the construction of the fire alarm system and tests of said systems were delayed.

While the Court finds the plaintiff credible in his testimony that the FDNY process generally takes some time and was further delayed due to the defendant's expeditor, the Court also credits defendant's testimony that the FDNY approval was ultimately delayed due to the failed sprinkler inspections which were a result of mistakes plaintiff's subcontractors made. Regardless, the Court finds that defendant's lack of memory as to how much she paid the fireguards as well as her lack of evidence provided to the Court on this issue does not establish a specific amount of damages she might be entitled to as a credit. Specifically, defendant did not bring anyone from Total Fire Protection to testify as to the work they performed, nor did she provide any admissible invoices or receipts of the fireguard services. Therefore, the Court cannot find that the defendant is entitled to any offset credits.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiff has provided credible testimony and evidence regarding the [*8]work they performed and the damages they incurred due to defendant's breach of contract. It is uncontested that the defendant already paid the sum of $190,000 to plaintiff in partial satisfaction of their Agreement. Plaintiff has successfully proved that the damages in the amount of $77,903.22 is reflective of the final and increased contract price of $285,187.71, less the $190,000 defendant paid, less the credits plaintiff gave defendant for work not performed. While defendant may have had some legitimate claims for additional credits owed the Court cannot find she is owed the same based on her think testimony alone. Defendant utterly failed to provide competent and admissible evidence at trial, particularly since she failed to provide witness and expert testimony and invoices and receipts to prove she sustained damages and is owed any additional credits. Given the foregoing, it is hereby;

ORDERED, that on the first cause of action judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $9,109.06 with interest thereon from September 26, 2016; and it is further

ORDERED, that on the second cause of action judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $77,903.22 with interest thereon from September 26, 2016; and it is further

ORDERED, that on the third cause of action judgement is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $250.00 with interest thereon from September 26, 2016, in accordance with the order granting summary judgment; and it is further

ORDERED, the defendant's counterclaims are dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED, that any other relief sought and not granted herein is denied.