Opinion
January 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Lerner, J., Richard Braun, J.).
Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's fourth cause of action was properly granted, whether the cause of action is considered as seeking additional compensation for extra work or for disputed work or for delay damages, since plaintiff failed to prove strict compliance with the notice and damage documentation requirements of Articles 27 and 28 of the contract ( see, Buckley Co. v City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 933, lv dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 742; Huff Enters. v Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 191 A.D.2d 314, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 655).
The trial court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action for failure to establish substantial completion of the work, which was a condition precedent for release of the 5% retainage. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing plaintiff's application to reopen its case after it had rested, and defendant had moved to dismiss ( King v Burkowski, 155 A.D.2d 285).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.