.

Case Law Alerts

Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act applies to mixed-use projects involving both residential and non-residential or commercial units.

El-Gharbaoui v. Ajayi, 2021 Pa. Super. 146, 2021 WL 3046856 (2021)

January 3, 2022

The Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 501 et seq., applies to construction contracts, except those contracts involving public works projects and construction contracts for the improvement to real property consisting solely of six or fewer residential units under construction simultaneously. In order to be entitled to relief under CASPA, a party must first establish a contractual right to payment pursuant to either a written or oral construction contract and a subsequent breach of that construction contract. Under the circumstances listed in CASPA, an owner, contractor or subcontractor who fails to make payment to a contractor or subcontractor in compliance with the statute may be held liable for interest, penalties, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. 

The project at issue in El-Gharbaoui was a multi-use one involving a church, daycare facility and two residential apartments. Despite the inapplicability of CASPA to projects involving the improvement of six or fewer residential units which are under construction simultaneously, the court concluded that CASPA applied to the mixed-use project at issue in El-Gharbaoui because “the objective of CASPA would be thwarted if the statute were deemed inapplicable to construction contracts that involved covered commercial structures, including mixed-use development, simply because the construction contract involved improvements on the same land or building to six or fewer residential units.” 
 

 

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.