Real Estate Law Firm Bronx Construction Payment Lawsuit

The client was a construction contractor specializing in interior finishing work at residential apartment units, including insulation, wall finishing, and related interior build out services. 

The contractor entered into a written agreement with a development company for primary construction services covering multiple apartment units, followed by a supplemental agreement for additional work requested during the project timeline.

The contractor supplied materials, mobilized labor, and completed all contracted work according to the agreed specifications and schedule.

 Upon completion of the initial phase, the developer requested additional interior work, which the contractor completed without interruption or deviation from the agreed scope.

The developer argued that payment was premature, claiming that portions of the work were incomplete or improperly performed. In response, the legal team conducted a comprehensive review of contractual documents, invoices, site communications, and progress records.

Through internal evidence analysis and third-party verification, the firm demonstrated that the contractor had fully performed all required work and that any changes to the work allocation were made at the developer’s request. 

This evidence established that the developer’s payment delay was not supported by contractual terms or documented deficiencies.

The developer further alleged that the contractor caused project delays and financial losses due to poor workmanship. 

The legal team systematically refuted these claims by presenting daily work logs, site inspection records, and correspondence showing that the contractor followed site management instructions and complied with all scheduling directives.

The evidence confirmed that any scheduling adjustments resulted from the developer’s own project coordination decisions rather than contractor fault. This clarification played a critical role in undermining the credibility of the developer’s defense.

The developer claimed that insulation defects and structural issues resulted from the contractor’s workmanship. 

The legal team arranged for technical review and site verification to determine the origin of the alleged defects.

The investigation revealed that the developer had accelerated construction timelines and required insulation work to proceed before proper curing periods had elapsed.

 As a result, any defects were attributable to the developer’s project sequencing decisions rather than contractor negligence.