Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York

107 A.D.2d 640, 484 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42924

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 24, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 640 (Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew Catapano Co. v. City of New York, 107 A.D.2d 640, 484 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. M. Myers, J.), entered August 24,1983, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to grant summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and otherwise affirmed. This action arises [641]*641out of a sewer construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant city. The second cause of action seeks to recover damages of $1,850,000 for added costs alleged to have been incurred by numerous work delays caused by the defendant. The contract contained a “no-damage-for-delay” clause. Under the circumstances here, this clause is a bar to recovery (Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 107 AD2d 610; see, also, Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 377). Denial of dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3126 is affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Carro and Lynch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. M. Myers, J.), entered August 24,1983, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to grant summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and otherwise affirmed. This action arises [641]*641out of a sewer construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant city. The second cause of action seeks to recover damages of $1,850,000 for added costs alleged to have been incurred by numerous work delays caused by the defendant. The contract contained a “no-damage-for-delay” clause. Under the circumstances here, this clause is a bar to recovery (Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 107 AD2d 610; see, also, Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 377). Denial of dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3126 is affirmed for the reasons stated by Special Term. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Carro and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 640, 484 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-catapano-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack