Ballard v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballard v. State of New York

27 A.D.2d 679, 277 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1967

DocketClaim No. 39892

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 679 (Ballard v. State 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

Ballard v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 679, 277 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If any justification can he found for awarding the subcontractor’s costs plus 5% for overhead and 10% for profit and, in addition, 10% of the resulting total for the contractor’s overhead and 10% thereof for the contractor’s profit, the present record does not demonstrate it. Further, the award is for the total costs with no deduction for the costs which would in any event have been incurred in processing the stockpiles had they been as the contractor, according to his contention, expected to find them. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., in the following memorandum: I concur in the result reached by the majority herein. Upon the retrial, the issues of misrepresentation on the part of the State and knowledge on the part of the claimant should be further explored in regard to the merits of this aspect of the action.

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

Per Curiam.

If any justification can he found for awarding the subcontractor’s costs plus 5% for overhead and 10% for profit and, in addition, 10% of the resulting total for the contractor’s overhead and 10% thereof for the contractor’s profit, the present record does not demonstrate it. Further, the award is for the total costs with no deduction for the costs which would in any event have been incurred in processing the stockpiles had they been as the contractor, according to his contention, expected to find them. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., in the following memorandum: I concur in the result reached by the majority herein. Upon the retrial, the issues of misrepresentation on the part of the State and knowledge on the part of the claimant should be further explored in regard to the merits of this aspect of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 679, 277 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1967.