How cited: People v. Williams · Go Syfert

People v. Williams (2007)

green · 12 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
Finally, strict compliance with these clauses is required ( see Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung , 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
Auth. , 92 NY2d 20, 31 [1998]; Fahs Rolston Paving Corp. v County of Chemung , 43 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2007]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
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]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
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]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
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]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
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]).
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
“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.
Rule Authority · N.Y. App. Div.
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.