The New York Appellate Division recently ruled on a case involving Clean & Green CNG Technologies Corp. and Diversified Erection Services (DES). The court's decision, issued on November 13, 2026, addresses the damages related to a construction incident that caused significant damage to a compressed natural gas (CNG) compressor. This ruling affects the parties involved and sets important precedents regarding the assessment of damages in breach of contract cases.

The case, identified by docket number 610 CA 25-00587, arose from an incident during the construction of a new commercial CNG station. DES was contracted to perform a lifting service but dropped and damaged a CNG compressor owned by Clean & Green. The dispute centers on the extent of damages and the claims for lost profits, which the plaintiffs sought as part of their breach of contract case against DES.

Clean & Green and its co-plaintiff, Diamond Builders Corp., filed the lawsuit against DES, claiming that the company failed to exercise due care during the lifting operation. This negligence led to the compressor's catastrophic damage. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, where both parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding damages.

On March 10, 2025, the lower court issued an order that granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and also granted part of DES's cross-motion for summary judgment. This order was appealed and cross-appealed, leading to the recent ruling by the Appellate Division.

The court ruled that the lower court's decision was modified to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for lost profits. The judges in this case included Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, and Hannah. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the lost profits were within the contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract. The opinion stated, "The lost profits sought here are consequential in nature because they stem from collateral business arrangements..."

Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the extent of damages related to the compressor. The ruling highlighted that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof regarding the value of the compressor before and after the incident. The court stated, "It is fundamental to the law of damages that one complaining of injury has the burden of proving the extent of the harm suffered."

As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling in part but modified it by dismissing the claims for lost profits and clarifying the damages related to the compressor. The court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately proven their claims for damages, particularly regarding the compressor's value and the costs associated with its replacement.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving breach of contract and damages. It underscores the importance of providing clear and convincing evidence when seeking damages, especially in cases involving lost profits. The decision may influence how similar cases are litigated in the future, particularly regarding the burden of proof and the types of damages that can be recovered.

Going forward, the parties may consider appealing this ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could also impact other pending cases involving breach of contract and damages in the construction industry.