Representative Cases

Canfield, Madden & Ruggiero represented a Canadian-based steel fabricator regarding unpaid contract balances for supply, fabrication and delivery of structural steel in support of the construction of a $13M municipal parking garage.  The General Contractor asserted justification for failure to pay fully half of the $1.2M subcontract through an allegation that defect fabrication led to excess camber within a number of the steel beams and girders incorporated into the project, leading to twisting of the exposed erected steel.  In response, our  Firm introduced evidence of pre-erection measurement of each of the several thousand steel members, along with measurement of removed steel members which indicated camber within contractual and AISC tolerances in the unstressed state.  This Firm further introduced evidence that the foundation had been poured by the General Contractor's own forces to incorrect elevations, with variance at a number of points of as much as several inches.  The Firm further argued that the General Contractor's subsequent steel erection upon varying foundation elevations created unintended stress in the building structure, resulting in the twisting of the erected steel.  Upon a Federal Court mediation, and extensive subsequent negotiations, the case settled with payment to the client of almost the entire contract balance.

Canfield, Madden & Ruggiero represented a New York area contractor which supplied and installed a flare system at a New York City landfill.  The project entailed the provision and installation of all piping, vents and flare system necessary for the burnoff of methane gas generated by the decomposition of the waste material under an impervious liner.  The client's subcontract had a value in excess of  $700,000.  The project was severely hampered upon the simultaneous financial failure of the General Contractor, which had been a major player in the construction industry of the Northeast United States.  Unfortunately, the financial difficulty of the GC interrupted cashflow to the client-subcontractor and impacted its ability to perform its contract.  Upon the GCs failure to make payment to the client over the course of several months, the client (prior to our retainer) walked off the project.  The GC was forced to subsequently complete the project using another contractor, and then presented the client with an exorbitant backcharge.  The GC alleged that not only was the client's entire contract balance consumed by the cost of completion, but that the cost exceeded the available contract balance by the approximate sum of $500,000.  The Firm commenced an action on behalf of our client in New York State Supreme Court seeking a contract balance of approximately $160,000, and the GC counterclaimed in the amount of several million dollars.  The parties then engaged in private mediation, resulting in the release of the GCs counterclaim and payment of a substantial portion of the client's claim.

Canfield, Madden & Ruggiero represented a Florida-based bridge steel detailer who had provided shop and erection drawings in support of a New York City bridge project with an overall GC contract amount value in excess of $100M.  The detailers outstanding contract balance of several hundred thousand dollars was insignificant in comparison, yet remained open in excess of a year prior to our involvement.  The Firm commenced action in Federal Court against the General Contractor and its sureties, as well as against the Connecticut-based steel fabricator that had actually contracted the client.  Upon the completion of discovery and a series of settlement conferences with and without the Court, the client was paid its entire contract balance and additional amounts for several previously unpaid change orders.

Canfield, Madden & Ruggiero represented a Tokyo-based steel fabricator that had supplied, fabricated and delivered road segments, which were essentially steel structures varying in size, but as much as forty feet long by twelve feet wide and several feet thick; the segments were dropped into place on the bridge and secured by the General Contractors forces.  The clients subcontract approximated $3.3M.  An issue arose upon the delamination or separation of the overlay (asphalt substitute) material from the underlying steel panel; the General Contractor alleged in-place repair costs for the delamination of some $700,000, and asserted the failure was entirely the responsibility of our client.  The client had been awaiting release of a small retainage, but the GC had refused and in fact threatened litigation for the payment of the cost of remediation.  This Firm appeared on behalf of our client, referenced Quality Assurance and Quality Control records which indicated that the delamination was due to unaddressed humidity and particulate conditions at the time of the Overlay application, and argued that control of such conditions should have been specified by the product manufacturer and/or the public authority within its contract specification.  Negotiations were conducted over the period of several months through which agreement on the cause of the delamination was never reached, but a financial settlement was reached in which the General Contractor released the client from liability for the remediation work in consideration of the client's waiver of its claim for its much smaller retainage.

Canfield, Madden & Ruggiero represented a Westchester County, New York-based subcontractor providing work in support of construction of a $20M condominium building.  Upon the GCs failure to make payment to the subcontractor, this office filed a Notice of Mechanic's Lien against the subject property.  The GC then purported to bond off the lien, and filed with the Court and subsequently served a bond in accordance with the Lien Law procedure.  However, this Firm checked the status of the alleged surety and determined that the company was not licensed as a surety within the State of New York, and alleged a business address in the American Virgin Islands.  Upon the Firm's motion challenging the validity of the bond, the Court declared the bond deficient and re-instated the lien.  As an encumbrance upon title, the GCs construction loan was not funded for several months pending resolution of the client's lien.  The client was paid in full.

Canfield Madden & Ruggiero has represented literally hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of contractors seeking and defending claims for unpaid contract balances.  The fFirm has filed and litigated literally hundreds of Notices of Mechanics Lien for Public and Private Improvements, and bonded off and defended against as many.  We have filed and defended against Payment Bond claims and breach of contract causes of action.