Real Estate Law Firm Manhattan Recovers Construction Payment

The client approached counsel after repeated assurances from the contractor failed to result in actual construction activity.

Although demolition of certain existing structures had occurred, no material procurement or construction progress followed.

The client’s primary concern was whether termination of the contract was legally permissible and whether recovery of the paid construction funds was realistically achievable under New York law.

In New York commercial construction projects, disputes frequently arise in situations such as delayed commencement of work, failure to mobilize labor or materials, unilateral payment demands without progress, inconsistencies between oral agreements and written contracts, and disputes over responsibility for project delays or cost overruns.

This matter presented a textbook example of a contractor accepting substantial funds without delivering corresponding performance.

Counsel conducted a detailed review of the construction contract, including commencement dates, scope of work provisions, and payment milestones.

Although the contractor characterized portions of the payment as material procurement costs, no objective evidence supported actual acquisition of materials.

Bank transfer records, invoices, and written communications were organized to demonstrate that the payments functioned as advance consideration contingent on performance that never occurred.

Photographic evidence, site condition records, and third party confirmations were used to establish that construction never progressed beyond preliminary demolition.

Written communications showed repeated delays attributed to vague future preparation rather than concrete action.

Based on these facts, the firm asserted lawful termination of the agreement due to material breach and sought restitution under New York contract principles emphasizing restoration of the status quo.

The contractor argued that partial demolition constituted meaningful performance and that funds were allocated to preparatory expenses.

The real estate law firm Manhattan countered by demonstrating that demolition alone did not satisfy the contractual scope and that preparatory assertions were unsupported by documentation.

The court accepted the position that performance must align with the agreed construction objectives, not merely preliminary activity.

The court found that the contractor’s failure to commence substantive construction constituted a material breach justifying termination.

It further held that retention of the prepaid funds would result in unjust enrichment, as the client received no commensurate value.

Accordingly, judgment was entered ordering full repayment of the construction payments to the client.

Construction contracts often contain technical provisions that determine when termination is lawful and how funds may be recovered.

Engaging a real estate law firm Manhattan at the first sign of nonperformance allows for strategic positioning before losses escalate.

Early documentation and structured communication frequently determine the success of later litigation.