The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent construction manager its share of cost savings under a construction management contract.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, her refusal to strike an affidavit, and her finding that the cost savings were lienable under the Construction Lien Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's contractual interpretation or her conclusion that cost savings constitute a lienable service.
