V. Scalisi

In a construction lien action, the plaintiff subcontractor claimed damages for breach of contract against the defendant contractor.

The court determined that the contract between the parties was a fixed-price contract that did not incorporate the payment terms of the prime contract.

The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the plaintiff's invoices and attempting to impose additional terms.

The court found the plaintiff was justified in terminating the contract and that its second lien was valid, directing the matter to an accounting phase to determine the quantum.

The defendants brought a motion to release $114,000 held in trust as security in place of a discharged Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs had originally obtained the CPL ex parte to secure a disputed $150,000 loan related to a real estate development project.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs had no reasonable interest in the property because the mortgage was discharged and replaced by an unsecured promissory note, and that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding a triable issue regarding the validity of the promissory note and mortgage discharge, and accepting the plaintiffs' explanation for not disclosing certain documents they did not possess or recall signing.