Lawsuit: Builder Denies Allegations of Breach of Contract, Negligence, Fraud in Connection with New Construction in Silvermine

A prominent area developer is denying a Silvermine homeowner’s allegations that his company has failed to make or offer to make acceptable repairs on a new condominium purchased last year, public court documents show.

In responding to a lawsuit last week from the owner of 1 River Road Unit C in Norwalk—located opposite the historic Silvermine Inn, beloved by generations of New Canaanites—Andrew Glazer of Glazer Group also denied allegations of breach of warranty, negligence and fraud in connection with the property, according to a formal answer.

It was purchased for $1,875,000 last February, Norwalk tax records show.

According to a civil complaint filed Jan. 4 by Stamford-based Mark Sank & Associates LLC on behalf of homeowner Beverly Wright, the warranty delivered by the builder said that the home would be: “free from faulty or defective materials; constructed in accordance with applicable law; constructed according to sound engineering and construction standards; constructed in a workmanlike manner; and fit for habitation.”

During construction, the complaint said, the defendants installed an underground drywell for the property, later removed and replaced.

“The installation of the replacement drywell by the Defendants and/or their agents was performed without the necessary permit and the drywell was placed too close to the Property’s septic field in violation of applicable State and local codes and regulations,” the complaint said.

It continued: “As a result of the improper installation, the underground drywell must be moved to a location that complies with applicable State and local codes and regulations. In addition, subsequent to the closing, the Plaintiff discovered the following issues with the siding installed by the Defendants and/or their agents on the Property: a. The siding terminates too closely to the ground to comply with applicable State and local building codes and the manufacturer’s specifications; b. In several locations, the siding is warped and gaping between boards causing water to run under the siding; The siding is not properly sealed; The absence of sleeves of sufficient height on the downspouts where they enter the underground pipe is inconsistent with sound construction practices; And the gutters and accompanying downspouts in certain locations are too small for the requirements of the roof of the Property causing rain water to overflow and pool at the foundation, causing the siding to become damaged.”

Wright is seeking monetary damages as well as punitive and “reasonable attorney’s fees damages,” as well as costs and “such other legal and equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate,” the lawsuit said.

Glazer Group LLC and Glazer Construction and Development LLC both are named as defendants, court documents show. In a formal answer filed on their behalf by Bove, Milici & Josem of Norwalk, the companies deny Wright’s allegations, including a claim that the builder violated a a state law designed to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive trade practices by engaging in actions that “were immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous and caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff.”

The complaint alleges that the builders of the home “failed to properly grade the yard after construction of the house.” As a result, according to the complaint, “the grading in several areas does not angle away from the house as required by applicable State and local building codes.”

According to the complaint: “The Plaintiff communicated the aforementioned issues to the Defendants but the Defendants have failed to correct them or have offered to perform unacceptable fixes that do not adequately address the issues with the Property.”

The complaint in one of its counts accuses Glazer Group of fraud.

The company “represented to the Plaintiff that as a reputable property developer it would fulfill commitments to repair or replace any defects discovered with the Property during the first year of ownership,” according to the civil complaint.

“Glazer Group further represented to the Plaintiff that the Property and the house on the Property would be constructed and was constructed in compliance with applicable State and local building codes,” it continued. “The actions and the false representations of the Glazer Group, as set forth herein, where made as statements of fact for the sole purpose of inducing the Plaintiff to enter into the Agreement and purchase the property from Galzer Group. The Plaintiff relied and acted on the aforesaid false representations in agreeing to enter into the Agreement and purchase the Property from Glazer Group. Glazer Gorup intended to induce and did induce the Plaintiff to enter into the aforesaid Agreement although Glazer Group knew or should have known that it misrepresented the terms of the Agreement, including but not limited to the representation that the Property and the house built on the Property would be and was in compliance with applicable State and local building codes. As a result of Glazer Group’s knowing, intentional and fraudulent conduct and false representations, the Plaintiff has or will incur damages to correct same. Furthermore, failure to correct the aforesaid issues may lead to further damage to the Property.”

Reiterating the same complaints, Wright’s attorneys in the legal filing accuse the Glazer Group of breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence.

According to the plaintiff, Wright is protected by language contained in the warranty, such as one section that details “[i]f a defect occurs in an item covered by this Limited Warranty, then Glazer Construction & Development LLC will repair or replace with an item of equal or greater value the defective item(s) within a reasonable time after Glazer Construction & Development LLC’s inspection or testing discloses the problem except in the event of an emergency.”

The lawsuit also cites a separate section of the agreement that details Glazer Group “hereby agrees that it will cause to be performed any work reasonably necessary to fulfill any repair or replacement obligations of Glazer Construction & Development LLC under its foregoing Warranty should Glazer Construction & Development LLC fail to do so.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *