Results
BAST HATFIELD, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH R. WUNDERLICH, INC., Defendant
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, COUNTY OF ALBANY
INDEX NO. 1933-04
March 2009
The Court credits the testimony of Wunderlich’s expert, Thomas D. Fertitta, based upon his knowledge of construction and the critical path method of scheduling construction projects. Fertitta concluded that the primary causes of delay were late site demolition by the owner, Bast’s delay in processing submittals and lack of coordination by Bast as evidenced by its failure to inform its subcontractors of the accelerated schedule. He determined that Wunderlich could not have completed its work any sooner regardless of manpower and, in any event, any delay in performance by Wunderlich did not delay completion of the project beyond the substantial and actual completion date.
R.W.GRANGER & SONS INC., Respondent,
v.
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ALBANY, Appellant.
91195
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT
2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116
July 3, 2002, Decided
July 3, 2002, Entered
2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116
We affirm. The trial evidence and exhibits are far too voluminous for lengthy recitation here. However, plaintiff's expert engineer, Thomas Fertitta, testified that based upon his "critical path" analysis, the project was delayed for a total of 133 days. Of the 133 days, Fertitta attributed all but 15 days to defendant and its agents by reason of their failure to coordinate the work of the various prime contractors and to prepare adequate construction schedules. These failures, in turn, resulted in the mechanical, electrical and plumbing work interfering with plaintiff's work, thereby causing the complained of delay. Fertitta attributed only 15 days of the delay to plaintiff which, in his opinion, was neither substantial nor material to completion of the project. To be sure, there was contrary testimony on the part of defendant's expert, but this merely presented a credibility determination for the trial court to resolve, and its determination in this regard is entitled to deference due to its ability to observe the tenor and demeanor of the witnesses. |
