This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Construction Contract
Breach of Contract, Elder Abuse, Financial Abuse

Madlyn E. Motta v. Dan Dubinsky, Gene Agranovsky dba Admiral Custom Builders, ACB Inc.

Published: May 16, 2009 | Result Date: Oct. 8, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CGC 06457793 Settlement –  $130,000

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dennis T. Soto

Merrill G. Emerick

Raymond H. Levy


Defendant

Vladislav P. Viltman
(Vladislav P. Viltman)


Facts

In 2003, plaintiff Madlyn E. Motta, 90, entered into a written contract with defendants Dan Dubinsky and Gene Agranovsky dba Admiral Custom Builders and ACB Inc. ACB Inc. agreed to install multiple windows at Motta's residence located in San Francisco. ACB Inc. was paid the contract price of $23,000. After the windows began to leak in 2005, Motta went back to ACB with the problem. ACB recommended defendants Yevgeny Dubinsky and Samuel Dubinsky dba Tophill Builders to inspect, trace, and repair the leaks. Yevgeny Dubinsky told Motta that the faulty construction of the property was the origin of the leaks. Tophill Builders entered into an oral agreement with Motta to repair the building with no confirmed price for completion of the work.

Motta sued defendant contractors for, among other claims, alter ego, breach of contract, and conspiracy.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Motta contended that defendants took advantage of her advanced age to overcharge her for unnecessary work. Motta argued that the poor workmanship of the unneeded repairs, coupled with the shoddy window installation, created the leaks that damaged her property. Motta maintained that the defendants lacked a contractor's license at the time of the work.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants denied all allegations.

Damages

Motta sought damages in the amount of $87,188.

Result

Motta accepted a settlement of $130,000.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 9, 2006.


#85776

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390