Bak v U.S. Levin Grp Corp.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on July 5, 2026

Index No. CV-004628-25/KI

Tehilah H. Berman, J.

Plaintiff Svetlana Bak ("plaintiff" or "Bak") commenced this action seeking damages arising from defendant U.S. Levin Grp Corp.'s ("defendant" or "Levin Corp.") renovation of the bathroom in her apartment. Plaintiff asserted a claim of failure to provide proper services for $50,000 with interest from 3/9/23. Defendant denied liability and asserted that delays in completing the project were attributable to plaintiff's changes in the selection of finishing materials. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. Defendant appeared through their attorney. The principal of Levin Corp., Boris Levin ("Levin"), also testified. For the reasons set forth below, judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $17,400.

Findings of Fact

The parties entered into a contract under which defendant agreed to fully renovate plaintiff's bathroom; plaster and primer in the kitchen; caulking; rewiring the kitchen outlets; building three doors and frames; painting the living room, dining and hallway; move the chandeliers; and other tasks. Plaintiff paid defendant monthly installments totaling $17,400.

During the course of construction, defendant removed the apartment's only toilet. Once removed, the toilet remained unusable for more than one month. At the time of the renovation, plaintiff resided in the apartment with her eighty-one-year-old husband, who was in poor health. During the period in which the bathroom was unusable, plaintiff and her husband were required to leave their building and use bathroom facilities in a neighboring building.

Plaintiff testified that the situation was extremely difficult for her husband, who became anxious about leaving the apartment and fearful that he would suddenly need to use a restroom. According to plaintiff, her husband reduced his food intake because he feared needing to use the bathroom. Plaintiff believes these events contributed to her husband's subsequent death but did not assert a wrongful death claim or support such claim with any medical opinions and diagnostic testing supporting this claim. Defendant contends that completion of the project was delayed because plaintiff changed her mind regarding the bathroom tiles. Ultimately, defendant completed the renovation, and the bathroom is presently in working order.

Conclusions of Law

Plaintiff's cause of action for failure to provide proper services under the contract is essentially a cause of action for breach of contract as against defendant. See, Garwood v. Sheen & Shine, Inc., 175 AD2d 569, 570 (4th Dept. 1991) ("A failure to perform the contract as agreed 'is merely a breach of contract,' which must be enforced by an action on that contract"). To prevail on a breach of contract claim, plaintiff must prove: "the existence of a contract, plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, defendant's failure to perform, and resulting damages." Chestnut Bay Equestrian, Inc. v. Irrevocable Trust of Pizzirusso, 244 AD3d 1056, 1057 (2d Dept. 2025); Legum v Russo, 133 AD3d 638, 639 (2d Dept. 2015). The parties do not dispute that they entered into a contract on November 10, 2022, or plaintiff's performance to the extent that she paid $17,400. The issue is whether defendant failed to perform on the contract resulting in damages.

A cause of action for breach of contract may established where a contractor "breached its undertaking to perform a renovation in a good and workmanlike manner." West Park Assoc., Inc. v. Cohen, 43 AD3d 818, 819 (2d Dept. 2007); Allyn v. Nail Stone Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Misc. LEXIS 54869, *6 (2022) (Sup. Ct. West. Co. 2022); Franzese v. Streets & Aves. Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Misc. LEXIS 1652, *4 (Sup. Ct. West. Co. 2023). Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) defines "good and workmanlike" as follows: "Of a product or service characterized by quality craftsmanship; constructed or performed in a skillful way or method." This court finds that defendant materially breached their duty under the contract to renovate plaintiff's home in a "good and workmanlike manner" by leaving plaintiff's residence without a functioning toilet for an unreasonable period of time.

This court credits defendant's testimony that plaintiff made certain changes in the selection of materials, which may have caused delay and inconvenience. Nevertheless, depriving residential tenants—particularly an elderly couple—of their only toilet for more than one month falls well outside the bounds of skillful performance. The court rejects defendant's contention that plaintiff's changes in tile selection excused this prolonged deprivation. At most, those changes affected certain finish work. They did not justify leaving the apartment without basic sanitary facilities for weeks, nor did they relieve defendant of its obligation to implement reasonable measures to restore basic sanitary facilities or otherwise alleviate the hardship imposed upon plaintiff and her elderly husband.

Plaintiff established that defendant materially breached the contract and that she sustained damages resulting from the prolonged loss of use of an essential portion of her home. The [*2]evidence further establishes that she paid defendant $17,400 under the contract despite defendant's unreasonable performance. Under these circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages representing the diminished value of defendant's performance together with compensation for the substantial loss of use and inconvenience directly resulting from defendant's breach. After considering all the evidence, the Court finds that an award of $17,400 fairly compensates plaintiff for defendant's material breach of contract and the damages proven at trial.

At trial, plaintiff sought damages based upon her husband's suffering and subsequent death. This court is sympathetic to plaintiff's testimony regarding the hardship experienced by her and her husband. Nevertheless, plaintiff did not prove a wrongful death or personal injury claim, as she did not present any competent medical evidence based on verified objective medical findings establishing that defendant's breach caused her husband's death; therefore, this court makes no finding of causation in that regard. See, Kordonsky v. Andrst, 172 AD2d 497, 498 (1991) (motion seeking leave to amend a complaint seeking damages for medical malpractice to assert cause of action for wrongful death must be supported by "competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged negligence of the defendant and the death of the original plaintiff"); Paul v. Trerotola, 11 AD3d 441, 442 (2d Dept. 2004) (evidence not substantiated by any verified objective medical findings was not deemed competent medical evidence). Accordingly, no damages may be awarded on this basis.

Furthermore, "damages which may be recovered by a party for breach of contract are restricted to those damages which were reasonably foreseen or contemplated by the parties during their negotiations or at the time the contract was executed." Lauricella v LC Apts., LLC, 173 AD3d 1821, 1821 (2019). The "purpose of this well-accepted principle of contract law is to limit the liability for unassumed risks of one entering into a contract and, thus, diminish the risk of business enterprise." Id. Plaintiff's husband's death could not have been anticipated when she and defendant entered into the contract. Accordingly, defendant's breach of its contractual obligation cannot be made the basis of a wrongful death action for plaintiff's husband. Lichtenstern v. Augusta-Aiken R.Y. & Elec. Corp., 165 A.D. 270, 273 (1st Dept. 1914).

Conclusion

Judgment is awarded in favor of plaintiff Svetlana Bak and against defendant M.S. Levin Grp Corp. in the amount of $17,400. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: 7/5/26

Hon. Tehilah H. Berman

Judge of the Civil Court, Kings County