Steel Claims

In Lin v. Serett Metal Works Corp. , a homeowner brought a six-figure contract action against a custom staircase contractor that retained a $22,500 deposit, supplied inaccurate drawings, missed installation dates, and substantially delayed the renovation. The contractor strung the homeowner along and refused to settle for even half the deposit, exploiting the contract’s lack of a fee-shifting provision and betting that litigation costs would consume the homeowner’s recovery.

After replacing prior counsel, Lawson moved to amend the complaint to include statutory claims that provided for the recovery of attorney’s fees. The Defendant vehemently opposed the amendment (which the Court permitted).

Lawson identified overlooked home improvement and deposit protection statutes and moved to amend the complaint to add claims concerning deficient disclosures, failure to escrow advance payments, and diversion of funds under New York General Business Law §§ 771, 772, and 773, and New York Lien Law § 71-a.

The Defendant opposed the amendment arguing that it would be prejudicial given the increased exposure of what was otherwise a $22,500 claim. Justice Gerald Lebovits disagreed and credited Lawson’s argument that the deposit represented only a fraction of a contract worth several times that amount. Because the new claims arose from the same underlying facts, the court held that increased exposure did not constitute unfair prejudice and granted the amendment over opposition. The amendment expanded the contractor’s potential liability and introduced statutory attorney’s fee exposure—the advantage Defendant touted earlier. The parties ultimately resolved the matter out of court.