Nead Elec. Inc. v Envirochrome Interiors, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Nead Elec. Inc. v Envirochrome Interiors, Inc. 2021 NY Slip Op 32503(U) November 22, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651909/2018 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2021 10:07 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 INDEX NO. 651909/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2021 SUPREME COURT QF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 4l ----------------. ------------------- -x Index No. 'NEAD ELECTRIC INC., 651909/2018 . Plaintiff DECISION ANO ORDER AFTER TRIAL against ENVIROCHROME.INTERIORS, BRIAN ROTHSCHILD, INC., -and Defendants ----------- . -----. -----------· -.-------x LUCY BtLLINGS, J.S.C.: The court ·held a nonjury·trial November 22, 2021, on plaintiff's action against defendant Envirochrome Interiors, Inc., for breach of contract and unjust enrichment~ Plaintiff discontinued without prejudice its c.laim for misappropriation of construction trust funds under New York ~ien Law·§ 79-a and all claims against defendant Rothschild. C.P.L.R. § 3217 . . Neither defendant appeared for the tr~al despit~ due notice. Upon the the testimony addused from plaintiff's chief. financial. officer, Josep~ Gusera, and its gerteral superintendent on. Envirochrome's constructiori project, Richard Lodato, and the exhibits admit€ed in evidence, the court finds and concludes as follows. Plaintiff and Envirochrome Interiors entered four purchase orders for plaintiff to provide electrical work at·Envirochrome Interiors' construction project at 100 Paik Avenue~ 13th floor, New York County. Ex. 1. Defendant signed only one. of the purchase orders, .but.the testimony establishe~ that the parties orally agre~d_to proceed with the work delineated in the purchase neadelec1"121 1 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2021 10:07 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 INDEX NO. 651909/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2021 orders despite the absence of a signature from one or both Envirochiome Inferiors issued all the purchase orders parties. under its letterhead only after Envirochrome Interiors approved the proposed work. Envirochrome Interiors signed the first and largest purchase order dated March 22, 2012, for work at a price of $140,000. second purchase drder was dated May 16, 2012, of $9,291. The, for work at a price The last two purchase orders were dated October 2, 2015, for work priced at $16,500 and $6,600. Plaintiff performed all the work delineated in- the purchase orders. Defendants accepted the w~~k performed without dispute or notice regarding any deficiency in· the scope or quality of the work ~r in the materiats plaintiff supplied. Plaintiff then transmitted invoices to Envirochrome Interiors for the work performed. Ex. 2. Plaintiff transmitted an invoice dated May 22, 2012, to Envirochrome Interiors for $9,291 for the work performed pursuant to the secpnd purchase order dated May 16, 2012. After EnVirochrome Interiors ~aid $126,000 to plaintiff toward the first purchase order, plaintiff transmitted an invoice .dated June 18, 2012, to Envirochrome Interiors for.the balance of $14,000. Plaintiff transmitted invoices dated October 20, 2015, to Envirochrome Interiors for $16,500 and $6,600 for the work performed pursuant to the final two purchase orders dated October 2, 2015. Pursuant to the parties' custom and practic~ in the construction indust~y, payment was due 90 days after the date of the invoice, and neadelecll21 _2 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2021 10:07 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 INDEX NO. 651909/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2021 plaintiff expected payment by then. Again plaintiff received no objection or dispute regarding these invoices totalling $46,451, yet defendants have never paid them. While p.la_intiff admitted that it could not complete the job of "tying ~n" a subtenant's security system to the project premises' fire alarm ·system, to permjt full egress in the event of a fire, this 6omponent of the job required plaintiff's access to the subt~nant's secuiity system, which neither deferidants nor the subtenant provided. Therefore plaintiff did not bill Envirochrome.Interiors for this component of work that was beyond plaintiff's control and never completed. Cofisequently, the court awards a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Envirochrome Interiors, Inc., for $46,451 on plaintiff's breach of contract claim, with interest at 9% per year on $9,291 from August 20, 2012, on $14;000 from $eptember 16, 2012, and on $23,100 from January 18, 2016, after the dates of plaintiff's invoices. 90 days Since the valid and enforceable'written and orai contracts proved by plaintiff provide for the same recovery that plaintiff seeks on its unjust enrichment claim, those contracts foreclose an_ unjust enrichment claim· against defendan~s. R.R. Co., Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388-89 (1987); Commissioner of the Dept. of Social SerVs. of the City of N.Y. v. New York-Presbyt. Hosp., 164 A.D.3d 93, 102 (1st. bep't 2018); Lantau Holdings .Ltd. v. General Pac. Group Ltd., 163 A.D.3d 407, 410 (1st Dep't 2017); Norcast S.ar.l. v. Castle Harlan, Inc., 147 A.D.3d 666, neacte•1ec1121 3 3 of 4 668 (1st [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2021 10:07 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 INDEX NO. 651909/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2021 Dep't 2017). Therefore the court dismisses plaintiff!s unjust enrichment claim and, as set forth above, discontinues without prejudice the remaining claims in the complaint. The Clerk shall enter a judgment according to this decision. DATED: November 22, 2021 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY EULUNGS J.S.C · neadelec1121 4 4 of 4

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.