Caceci v. Di Canio Construction Corp.
Court of Appeals of New York
526 N.E.2d 266 (1988)
- Written by Sarah Larkin, JD
Facts
Di Canio Construction Corp. (Di Canio) (defendant) agreed to build a home for the Cacecis (plaintiffs). The Cacecis closed on the property. During construction, Di Canio became aware that the soil on which the house would be built was composed of tree trunks, wood and other biodegradable materials, but continued construction anyway. Four years after construction, Mrs. Caceci noticed a dip in the kitchen floor. Di Canio attempted to repair the dip by jacking up the floor and inserting shims to close the gap, but the repair was not sufficient and the floor began to dip again. Di Canio was again notified of the dip and again attempted repair the dip. Di Canio informed the Cacecis at this time that the dip was due to normal settling. The Cacecis hired a company experienced in structural repairs to review the problem. That company concluded that the soil on which the home was built was causing the home to sink. It concluded that the problem could not be cured unless the soil under the home and the entire foundation was replaced. The Cacecis filed suit. The trial court held that Di Canio breached duties of negligence and implied warranty of workmanlike construction. Di Canio appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court ruling regarding the implied warranty. Di Canio appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bellacosa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.