Bero Construction Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bero Construction Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority

41 A.D.2d 691, 342 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1973

DocketClaim Ho. 49729

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 691 (Bero Construction Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority) 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

Bero Construction Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority, 41 A.D.2d 691, 342 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record amply supports the Trial Judge’s finding that there was an oral modification of the contract and that claimant’s performance of the overtime work under circumstances not required by the original contract was sufficient consideration for the modification. The Authority’s contention that because of the contract provision requiring any change of the terms of the contract to be in writing the oral modification was nugatory is without merit (Beatty v. Guggenheim, Exploration Co., 225 N. Y. [692]*692380, 387; Amadeus, Inc. v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 873, app. dsmd. 29 N Y 2d 634; Davis Accoustical Corp. v. National Sur. Corp., 27 A D 2d 624; Alcon v. Kinton Realty, 2 A D 2d 454, 456, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 2 N Y 2d 836). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for breach, of contract.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Houle, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record amply supports the Trial Judge’s finding that there was an oral modification of the contract and that claimant’s performance of the overtime work under circumstances not required by the original contract was sufficient consideration for the modification. The Authority’s contention that because of the contract provision requiring any change of the terms of the contract to be in writing the oral modification was nugatory is without merit (Beatty v. Guggenheim, Exploration Co., 225 N. Y. [692]*692380, 387; Amadeus, Inc. v. State of New York, 36 A D 2d 873, app. dsmd. 29 N Y 2d 634; Davis Accoustical Corp. v. National Sur. Corp., 27 A D 2d 624; Alcon v. Kinton Realty, 2 A D 2d 454, 456, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 2 N Y 2d 836). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for breach, of contract.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Houle, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 691, 342 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bero-construction-corp-v-new-york-state-thruway-authority-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack