Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. v. C.O. Falter Construction Corp.
Citations: 117 A.D.3d 1540; 985 N.Y.S.2d 804Docket: Appeal No. 2
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 9, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
The judgment from the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, dated August 23, 2012, awarded damages to C.O. Falter Construction Corp. after a nonjury trial. The legal dispute arose from a public improvement project where Falter Construction, as the general contractor, hired the plaintiff to supply fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) products. Falter Construction refused to pay the plaintiff's final invoice, citing missing, defective, or nonconforming products. Consequently, Falter demanded a surety bond for assurance of performance, which the plaintiff could not provide, leading to the termination of their agreement and Falter procuring FRP products from other suppliers. Following the termination, the plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien corresponding to the final invoice, but Falter secured a bond to discharge this lien. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit for breach of contract and sought foreclosure of its lien. Falter counterclaimed, asserting that the lien was void due to the plaintiff's willful exaggeration of the claimed amount. In the first appeal, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, declared the mechanic’s lien void, and awarded damages to Falter under Lien Law § 39-a, along with an inquest for attorney's fees. The second appeal focused on the judgment awarding damages to Falter, while the third appeal addressed the awarded attorney’s fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that the plaintiff willfully exaggerated the lien amount, which was determined not solely based on discrepancies but also on evidence of intentional exaggeration. The court validated Falter’s claims regarding the lien and found no abuse of discretion in the fees awarded for legal services related to discharging the lien. Overall, the appeals were dismissed, and the judgments in favor of Falter were upheld.