Schott v. Lucatelli: Affirming Statutory Pre-Judgment Interest and Valuation Standards in Quantum Meruit Home-Construction Disputes

Introduction

In Schott v. Lucatelli (2025 NY Slip Op 03616) the Appellate Division, Third Department, was asked to review Supreme Court’s grant of $30,650(i.e., $43,400 less $12,750 defect offset) to an informal contractor who built a family member’s house without a written agreement. Because General Business Law § 771 barred a traditional contract claim, the case turned entirely on an equitable theory of quantum meruit, including (1) how to quantify the “reasonable value” of services rendered by a non-professional builder, and (2) whether prejudgment interest at the CPLR statutory rate is available—an issue on which New York’s Departments are divided. The Third Department affirmed, thereby solidifying two important practical rules:

Detailed oral testimony, photographs, and corroborating witnesses can satisfy the quantum-meruit “reasonable value” element even where invoices are sparse.
Prejudgment interest may be awarded on quantum-meruit damages notwithstanding the doctrine’s equitable origins, maintaining parity with breach-of-contract actions.

Although the panel expressly declined to “resolve” the existing departmental split regarding interest, the outcome functions as a pragmatic precedent for trial courts in the Third Department—and persuasive authority elsewhere—when faced with similar home-construction disputes lacking written contracts.

Summary of the Judgment

No Written Contract: The parties’ familial relationship led them to omit a formal agreement for the construction of a home.
Quantum Meruit Recovery: Supreme Court awarded $43,400 based on 31 weeks of labor at 40 hours per week, valued at $35/hour, then deducted $12,750 for defective work, yielding a net award of $30,650.
Prejudgment Interest: Interest from April 2020—the point at which the defendant locked the plaintiff out—was awarded at the statutory rate.
Appellate Holding: The Third Department affirmed the order and judgment in their entirety, crediting the trial court’s credibility determinations and finding no abuse of discretion in the calculation of damages or in granting interest.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court relied on a series of recent quantum-meruit and construction-law decisions, each shaping distinct facets of the analysis:

Murray v. Bickerton (2024) — Reiterated the four-part quantum-meruit test, emphasizing the need for proof of reasonable value. Schott borrowed heavily from Murray in framing the burden of proof and in justifying offsets for defective workmanship.
LaPenna Contracting Ltd. v. Mullen (2020) & White Knight Construction v. Haugh (2023) — Clarified that failure to comply with GBL § 771’s writing requirement forecloses breach-of-contract recovery but not quantum meruit. These cases positioned Schott squarely within the statutory scheme that protects homeowners while permitting equitable recovery for builders acting in good faith.
Thomas J. Hayes & Assoc. v. Brodsky (2012) and Frank v. Feiss (1999) — Used for rate comparison; they approved valuation by hourly *market* rate, even when the claimant is not a licensed contractor. The $35/hour figure adopted in Schott echoes these cases.
Interest-Award Cases
• Ogletree, Deakins v. Albany Steel (1997) — Suggests interest is mandatory.
• Precision Foundations v. Ives (2004) — Characterizes quantum meruit as equitable, implying discretionary interest.
• First/Second Department lines (Tesser, Marin) — Clearly mandate interest.
• Fourth Department inconsistent authorities (Crane-Hogan vs. TY Elec.).
These conflicting precedents framed the Court’s explicit acknowledgement of an “unresolved” doctrinal split, but the judgment’s affirmation implicitly signals the Third Department’s comfort in awarding statutory interest.

2. Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review: On a non-jury verdict, the Appellate Division independently assesses the weight of evidence while deferring to credibility determinations—a framework drawn from Zwack v. Hunt (2024) and Harris v. Reagan (2023).
Quantum-Meruit Elements Applied:
- Good-faith performance: Construction began promptly; plaintiff obtained permits and used funds solely for project expenses.
- Acceptance of services: Defendant lived in/continued construction of the structure after locking the plaintiff out.
- Expectation of compensation: Testimony showed the parties anticipated payment once family assets were liquidated.
- Reasonable value: Established via detailed testimony, corroborating witnesses, photographs, and comparison to professional rates.
Calculation of Reasonable Value: The Court accepted a blended hourly rate rather than market-billing by licensed contractors. The choice of $35/hour was strategic:
- Avoided unjust enrichment to the homeowner;
- Reflected the claimant’s semi-professional status;
- Stayed within the evidentiary range provided by expert witnesses.
Deduction for Defective Work: The award was reduced by the cost to remedy faulty construction—consistent with equitable balancing and prior holdings (Home Construction v. Beaury).
Prejudgment Interest Analysis: The Court recognized doctrinal tension but concluded interest was proper under either standard:
- As a quasi-contract claim, quantum meruit “sounds in law,” triggering CPLR 5001(a), which mandates interest from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed.
- Even treating it as “equitable,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the defendant’s unilateral lock-out and prolonged non-payment.

3. Anticipated Impact

Practical Construction Context. Informal, intra-family or “handshake” building arrangements are common upstate. Schott provides a roadmap for:

Trial courts to quantify labor value where documentation is thin.
Homeowners to understand that withholding payment and barring a builder’s access may accelerate liability, including interest.
Counsel to advise semi-professional builders that they can still recover, but they must preserve evidence (photos, time logs, corroborating witnesses).

Doctrinal Ripples. While not resolving the statewide split on prejudgment interest in quantum meruit, the Third Department’s practical stance adds weight to the “mandatory-interest” line of cases, potentially nudging the Court of Appeals toward uniformity in future litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Quantum Meruit: Latin for “as much as he deserved.” It is an equitable (fairness-based) doctrine that allows someone who provided services without an enforceable contract to be paid the reasonable value of those services.
General Business Law § 771: A statute requiring certain home-improvement contracts to be in writing and to contain specific disclosures. Non-compliance blocks standard breach-of-contract recovery but does not negate equitable remedies.
Prejudgment Interest (CPLR 5001): Additional money added to a damages award to compensate a plaintiff for the time value of money lost between when the cause of action accrued and when judgment is entered. The statutory rate in New York is 9% per annum unless otherwise specified.
Departmental Split: When different Appellate Division Departments (New York’s intermediate appellate courts) reach inconsistent conclusions on a legal question. The Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) is typically looked to for ultimate resolution.

Conclusion

Schott v. Lucatelli serves as an important touchstone for home-construction disputes lacking formal contracts. The judgment confirms that:

Builders can secure payment for labor by rigorously proving scope and value—even where documentation is informal;
Courts will deduct the cost of curing defective workmanship, reinforcing quality expectations;
Prejudgment interest remains available (and, at least in the Third Department, likely) in quantum-meruit awards, compensating plaintiffs for lengthy delays in payment.

The decision thus blends equitable fairness with quasi-contractual certainty, guiding practitioners, contractors, and homeowners alike. While it stops short of reconciling the statewide conflict on interest, its affirmation of statutory prejudgment interest strengthens the argument for a uniform rule— an issue ripe for eventual Court of Appeals review.