Everest Gen. Contrs. v New York City Hous. Auth.

Everest Gen. Contrs. v New York City Hous. Auth. 2012 NY Slip Op 06741 Decided on October 9, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 9, 2012
Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse, JJ.
8225 602195/09

[*1]Everest General Contractors, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

New York City Housing Authority, Defendant-Respondent.




King & King, LLP, Long Island City (Brendan J. Hennessey of
counsel), for appellant.
Kelly D. Macneal, New York (Lauren L. Esposito of counsel),
for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered September 14, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to provide timely written notice of its intention to make a claim for damages arising out of defendant's delay, a condition precedent to commencing an action pursuant to section 23 of the parties' contract (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 20, 30-31 [1998]; 4-A Gen. Contr. Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 28 AD3d 261 [1st Dept 2006]). Plaintiff's July 26, 2004 letter which was allegedly sent to defendant, does not satisfy the requirement of written notice. The letter was not designated as a notice of claim, gave no indication of an intent to make a claim, and was sent long before the March 2006 accrual of plaintiff's claim rather than within 20 days of the date the claim arose (see Bat-Jac Contr. v New York City Hous. Auth., 1 AD3d 128 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and
find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 9, 2012

CLERK