211 W. 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra/Ruddy Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
211 W. 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra/Ruddy Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 31754(U) September 19, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651034/10 Judge: Jennifer G. Schecter Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART .57 ----------------------------------------x 211 WEST 18TH REALTY, LLC, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, -against- Index No. 651034/10 CETRA/RUDDY INCORPORATED, JOHN CETRA, RA and NANCY RUDDY, RA, Defendants. ----------------------------------------x JENNIFER G. SCHECTER, J.: Plaintiff 211 West 18th Street, LLC (211) developed property located at 211 West 18th Street in Manhattan. It commenced this action against defendants seeking recovery for breach of contract, misrepresentation. architectural malpractice and negligent Defendant Cetra Ruddy Incorporated (CRI), which contracted for architectural services for the project, asserted counterclaims for remaining unpaid fees based on breach of contract, unjust enrichment and an account stated. After a several-week~long trial, the jury found in favor of defendants on all of plaintiff's claims. jury found plaintiff, that that CRI did neither not CRI breach nor Specifically, the its John contract Cetra with committed malpractice and that none of the defendants made negligent misrepresentations to plaintiff. favor of CRI on its The jury further found in counterclaims, concluding that 211 breached the parties' agreement, was unjustly enriched as a result of services rendered by CRI and that CRI was entitled to recover based on an account stated. $146,790.64. 2 of 6 The jury awarded CRI [* 2] Index No. 651034/10 Page 2 211 West 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra Ruddy Inc. Its motion is 211 now moves to set aside the verdict. denied. Counterclaims 211 urges that CRI cannot recover unlawfully practicing architecture as a because domestic it "was business corporation and unlawfully splitting fees with an unlicensed person, Nancy Ruddy" (Memorandum of Law in Support [Supp] at 6). 211 does not cite a Significantly, single case where recovery was not permitted when the architectural work was performed by licensed architects. This case Design Group, Dept 1997). fees, was is not materially distinguishable Inc. v Yonehama, Inc., 230 AD2d 533, from SKR 535 (1st There, plaintiff, which sought to recover unpaid "not a professional regular business corporation, corporation, but rather a and thus was prohibited from entering into a contract for architectural services" (id.) . Because it submitted proof that "all of the architectural work was done by a licensed architect" and all formal plans used for the project were registered architect, signed, sealed and stamped by a the court concluded that the parties' contract was enforceable and was not void as against public policy (id.). 211 overstates the significance provision in SKR Design Group, 3 of 6 Inc., of the contractual which set forth that [* 3] Index No. 651034/10 Page 3 211 West 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra Ruddy Inc. architectural work would be performed by a licensed architect. "Since the purpose of the licensing requirements is to ensure that the regulated work is performed by those with necessary skills and training," the contract need not specifically designate that the practice of architecture will be performed by licensed architects as a prerequisite for recovery (id. at 537). It goes without saying that in order for one to recover for architectural services those services must be provided by a licensed professional. "Where [licensed architects] performed all of the services despite not being named in the contract, as here, the effectiveness of the regulatory scheme is not weakened. This is true because the licensed [professionals] selected [remain] 'inescapably subject to the educational, regulatory punishment mechanisms of the licensing entity.' it is a specific contractual license, provision] , not which a specific the law and Ultimately, name requires. [or a In [Charlebois v J.M. Weller Assocs., 72 NY2d 587 (1988) and SKR Design Group, Inc.], as here, all the [architectural] work was performed by [licensed people], completed at significant cost. and was substantially It would be improper for the Education Law to be used 'as a sword for personal gain rather than a shield for the public good'" (id. at 537-538). Because the evidence established that the architectural services were rendered by licensed architects--John Cetra and 4 of 6 [* 4] Index No. 651034/10 Page 4 211 West 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra Ruddy Inc. Rosenberg--and Jeff because CRI will not be awarded duplicative damages despite a finding that it is entitled to recovery for unpaid fees under several theories, plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict on defendant's counterclaim is denied. New Trial on Plaintiff's Claims 211 has not established a basis for setting aside the verdict or ordering a new trial on its claims. 211 argues that it was reversible error to admit evidence derived from Gary Brown's Connecticut matrimonial proceeding. Part of the damages that plaintiff sought included interest expenses on borrowed money and loan extension fees that were alleged to have been necessary to keep the project going. At trial, Gary Brown testified that he used all of his money-"every dollar"--on situation, the project and about his financial including "$300,000 in credit cards outstanding" (Affirmation in Opposition, Ex G at 2369). He explained that any cash that he had was put in the project to keep it going (id. at 2370). Mr. Brown put his financial status at issue and, in response, defendants used court findings to question the circumstances that Mr. Brown conveyed. Connecticut court concluded that Mr. The fact that a Brown lived on between $600,000 and $1 million of tax free income during the relevant time and that he was providing his wife $40,000 monthly and 5 of 6 [* 5] 211 West 18th Realty, LLC v Cetra Ruddy Inc. Index No. 651034/10 Page 5 living a "glorious life style" bears on the credibility of Mr. Brown's testimony and on mitigation of damages. Because the questioning based on the Connecticut determinations focused on findings related to Mr. Brown's financial status during the relevant time period, it was relevant and was not, as 211 now contends, unduly prejudicial. The court decisions themselves, admitted into evidence subject material. to moreover, were redaction of only irrelevant Because the jury was not given all of the exhibits and never requested to see the Connecticut determinations, nothing "palpably irrelevant deliberations" Finally, . improperly tainted the jury (Supp at 10) · a new trial is not warranted based on the court's refusal to send all of the evidence, which included hundreds of documents, into request during deliberations. the jury room at plaintiff's The jury was advised that it could examine any evidence that it requested. Nothing was improper. Accordingly, denied. Dated: it is is ORDERED that plaintiff's This constitutes the Decision the Court. September 19, 2016 HON. JENNI G. SCHECTER · At oral argument, plaintiff withdre its argument that admission of "amount evidence" as to Linmar Construction Corp. and Dubinsky Consulting Engineers P.C. mandates a new trial (Supp at 13-14). 6 of 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
