EDF RENEWABLE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellant, 693 F. App'x 42

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant County of Suffolk (the “County”) appeals the District Court’s entry of judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee EDF Renewable Development, Inc. (“EDF”). The court found that the County violated a provision of the parties’ contract that required the County to cooperate with EDF’s efforts to obtain a permit to build solar carports on a plot of land in Ronkon-koma that EDF leased from the County.

Rejecting the County’s arguments that EDF was required to comply with a purported notice of breach provision in the contract before suing, and that EDF had not demonstrated that it suffered cognizable damages, the District Court made detailed factual findings about the County’s breach based on the testimony of several witnesses involved in the underlying events and other record evidence, and awarded EDF damages of $10,884,225.70. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Here, having reviewed the court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error, see Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 618 F.3d 76, 85 (2d Cir. 2010), we conclude that the District Court properly found that the County breached its contractual obligations, that EDF was entitled to damages resulting from the breach, and that, in the circumstances presented, EDF’s failure to give the County a formal notice of the breach did not preclude it from bringing suit. Moreover, EDF was not required to bring its breach of contract claim in an

Article 78 proceeding. See Abiele Contracting v. NYC Sch. Constr. Auth., 91 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, 666 N.Y.S.2d 970, 689 N.E.2d 864 (1997). We therefore affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of November 17, 2016. We have considered the County’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. . EDF is in fact a successor to enXco, the relevant counterparty to the contract with the County; enXco assigned its contractual claims to EDF.