Bast Hatfield, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 25, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made concerning a Supreme Court order that denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint related to a contract for removing subsurface fuel oil tanks. The plaintiff, Bast Hatfield, Inc., subcontracted the work to Kleen Resources, Inc., which encountered issues when defendant questioned whether water extracted from the tanks was hazardous waste. This led to delays in the project, prompting Bast to submit claims for damages due to these delays. Subsequent contract amendments provided additional compensation but explicitly included language that precluded further claims for damages related to delays. The defendant argued that the clear language of the amendments indicated that all adjustments were included, preventing the plaintiffs from seeking additional damages. The court agreed, citing the unambiguous nature of the amendments and emphasizing that extrinsic evidence, such as a letter from the defendant and oral assurances, could not alter the clear terms of the written contract. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not create an ambiguity in the contract and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The order was modified to reflect this decision, with costs awarded to the defendant.