People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 1192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 1192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …failure to strictly comply with such provisions generally constitutes waiver of a claim for additional compensation at p. 1194 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the notification and record-keeping provisions of this contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery at p. 1194 ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) MLB Constr. Servs., LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Finally, strict compliance with these clauses is required ( see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung , 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Framan Mech., Inc. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Auth. , 92 NY2d 20, 31 [1998]; Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung , 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ridley Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dormitory Auth. of The State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Group, Inc. v State of New York, 123 AD3d 1311 , 1311 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 902 [2015]; Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tougher Industries, Inc. v. Dormitory Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Even if defendant did so, plaintiff’s submissions demonstrate that it did nothing to identify the work contained in the change orders as extra contractual (see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fahs Construction Group, Inc. v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The contract provided that “[t]he notification and record-keeping provisions of this Contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery” (see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fahs Construction Group, Inc. v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The contract provided that “[t]he notification and record-keeping provisions of this Contract shall be strictly complied with for disputes of any nature and are a condition precedent to any recovery” (see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rifenburg Construction, Inc. v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Failure to strictly comply with such provisions generally constitutes waiver of a claim for additional compensation” (Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]; see also Bat-Jac Contr. v New York City Hous.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phoenix Signal & Electric Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Accordingly, claimant’s failure to comply with its contractual obligation to provide the required notices and reports constitutes a waiver of the extra work claims (see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung, 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]; Kingsley Arms, Inc. v Sano Rubin Constr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Williams, Also Known as Deandre Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 25, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 1192
Published

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 11, 2000 (People v Williams, 278 AD2d 348 [2000]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered December 22, 1998.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 [1983]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Goldstein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.