1. Construction Attorney New York | Client Background and Construction Dispute Overview
The client retained a construction attorney New York after being sued by a general contractor seeking approximately $950,000 in alleged unpaid construction costs and project management fees related to a newly constructed hospitality property in Manhattan.
The dispute arose after the project had already received its certificate of occupancy and entered commercial operation, making the timing and substance of the claim particularly contentious.
Project Development and Contractual Framework
The client had acquired a parcel of land for the purpose of developing a mid scale lodging facility and entered into a written construction contract with the contractor for a fixed scope of work.
The agreement clearly defined the contract price, construction milestones, and payment schedule, but did not include any provision for separate management compensation or discretionary additional work without formal written approval.
2. Construction Attorney New York | Contractor’S Claims and Legal Exposure
After project completion, the contractor initiated litigation asserting that substantial additional work had been performed outside the original contract and that the contractor had provided extensive project oversight services warranting separate compensation.
The complaint sought recovery for alleged unpaid construction balances, extra work, and management fees totaling nearly $950,000.
Alleged Additional Work and Management Fees
The contractor argued that changes in construction conditions and informal communications justified additional compensation, despite the absence of written change orders or revised agreements.
The contractor further claimed that ongoing involvement in scheduling and coordination constituted a separate management engagement, even though no independent consulting or agency contract existed.
3. Construction Attorney New York | Defense Strategy against Construction Payment Claims
The construction attorney New York structured the defense by dividing the plaintiff’s claims into distinct legal theories and addressing each with targeted evidentiary and contractual analysis.
The defense emphasized New York’s well established requirement that construction payment claims must be grounded in clear contractual consent or documented modification.
Rejection of Separate Compensation Agreement
The defense demonstrated that New York courts do not recognize implied management fee agreements in construction disputes absent express contractual language.
No written agreement, amendment, or contemporaneous correspondence supported the existence of a separate compensation arrangement, and generalized project involvement was shown to fall squarely within the contractor’s original contractual obligations.
No Proof of Approved Additional Construction Costs
The construction attorney New York further established that alleged additional work was neither authorized through written change orders nor reflected in contemporaneous billing records.
Under New York law, where a governing construction contract expressly requires written approval for scope changes, mere performance of additional work does not create an enforceable right to payment absent such approval, and the contractor’s after the fact assertions were insufficient to meet this standard.
4. Construction Attorney New York | Financial Record Analysis and Court Outcome
A detailed forensic review of payment records revealed that the transfers relied upon by the contractor were unrelated to construction costs and instead reflected short term internal loans and reconciliations between affiliated entities.
The defense also challenged the contractor’s reliance on partially executed progress documents, showing that the client had not knowingly approved them as acknowledgments of additional payment obligations.
Court’S Findings and Complete Dismissal of Claims
The court concluded that no enforceable agreement supported the claimed management fees, that no valid approval existed for additional construction costs, and that the financial transfers could not be characterized as unpaid construction balances.
As a result, the court dismissed the contractor’s claims in their entirety and ordered the contractor to bear all litigation costs, fully vindicating the client’s position.
27 Jan, 2026
