A New York appellate court has vacated a judgment that awarded $210,000 to Clean & Green CNG Technologies Corp. against Diversified Erection Services. The ruling, issued on November 13, 2026, affects the ongoing legal battle between the two companies and raises questions about the determination of damages in such cases.

The dispute centers around a contractual agreement between Clean & Green CNG Technologies Corp. and Diversified Erection Services. The two companies were involved in a project that ultimately led to disagreements over payments and performance. As a result, Clean & Green filed a lawsuit against Diversified Erection, seeking compensation for alleged breaches of contract.

The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after a lower court ruled in favor of Clean & Green. The initial judgment, entered on May 14, 2025, granted Clean & Green $210,000, along with interest, costs, and disbursements. This decision prompted Diversified Erection to appeal, leading to the recent ruling.

The court ruled that the previous judgment was to be vacated. The judges involved in the decision were Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, and Hannah. The ruling stated, "the judgment so appealed from is unanimously vacated without costs and the order entered March 10, 2025, is modified on the law by denying the motion of Erie Insurance Company to the extent that it sought a determination of the amount of damages." This indicates that the court found issues with how damages were previously assessed.

In its ruling, the court emphasized the need for a clearer determination of damages before any judgment could be finalized. The judges pointed out that the prior order related to the damages was not appropriate and needed modification. This decision effectively sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings regarding the damages owed.

The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties. For Clean & Green, the vacating of the judgment means they will not receive the awarded amount until further legal determinations are made. For Diversified Erection, the ruling provides an opportunity to contest the damages and potentially reduce their financial liability. This case highlights the complexities involved in contractual disputes and the importance of precise damage assessments in legal proceedings.

The ruling may also set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the determination of damages in contract disputes. It reinforces the idea that courts must carefully evaluate the evidence presented to ensure fair outcomes in business-related legal matters.

Looking ahead, the case could still be appealed to a higher court, although details about any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. Additionally, any related cases or motions will likely be influenced by this ruling as it progresses through the legal system.