Beermann v. Di Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beermann v. Di Carlo

27 A.D.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 724 (Beermann v. Di Carlo) 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

Beermann v. Di Carlo, 27 A.D.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 25, 1965 denying petitioner’s motion for judgment and judgment entered July 30, 1965 dismissing the petition in this article 78 proceeding unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We appreciate the candor of the Corporation Counsel in conceding the variance between Specification No. 1 and the proof. The hearing proceeded on the theory that petitioner overcharged in that his employees arrived later than the time from which the charges were computed and they unnecessarily delayed and prolonged the work. All parties understood the nature and extent of the charges and the petitioner makes no point of the variance. We do not find it necessary to resolve the statutory construction questions raised by the appellant, by reason of the fact that there was no departure from the effective tariff. Concur-—Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order entered June 25, 1965 denying petitioner’s motion for judgment and judgment entered July 30, 1965 dismissing the petition in this article 78 proceeding unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We appreciate the candor of the Corporation Counsel in conceding the variance between Specification No. 1 and the proof. The hearing proceeded on the theory that petitioner overcharged in that his employees arrived later than the time from which the charges were computed and they unnecessarily delayed and prolonged the work. All parties understood the nature and extent of the charges and the petitioner makes no point of the variance. We do not find it necessary to resolve the statutory construction questions raised by the appellant, by reason of the fact that there was no departure from the effective tariff. Concur-—Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 724, 279 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beermann-v-di-carlo-nyappdiv-1967.