A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
reminds us of the importance of using consistent terms when
drafting a construction contract. In Clinton Assoc. For A Renewed Envt. Inc. v.
Monadock Constr. Inc., defendants, pursuant to a
contract (the "Contract"), agreed to provide
architectural services and contract administration services to
plaintiffs.1 As part of their work, defendants
prepared architectural plans, including specifications for the
design system and choice of materials for the exterior masonry wall
system. The Certificate of Substantial Completion was signed
on March 29, 2006 and, at or about that time, the masonry walls
began to fail, causing the walls to bulge and take on water.
It was determined that the walls could not withstand the weather
cycles to which they were exposed. Following Substantial
Completion of the project, defendants worked extensively to cure
the flaws in the masonry walls by, among other things, creating
