Brookfield Construction Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brookfield Construction Co. v. State

39 A.D.2d 999, 333 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155

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

DecidedJune 29, 1972

DocketClaim No. 51869

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 999 (Brookfield Construction Co. v. State) 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

Brookfield Construction Co. v. State, 39 A.D.2d 999, 333 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered on April 21, 1971, which granted a motion by the State of New York for a further bill of particulars. Brookfield Construction Co., Inc., filed a claim against the State in the amount of $2,972,561 for a breach of a cohstruction contract. Sixty-two causes of action were set forth, and, after a demand, a 182-page bill of particulars was served. A motion was then made for the further bill addressed to the second cause of action which relates to unreasonable interference with the construction of the project. The original bill more than adequately apprises the respondent of the nature of the claim, limits the proof and prevents surprise at the trial (State of New York v. Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Assn., 34 A D 2d 769; Holland v. Baker, 30 A D 2d 136). The State’s attempt to have claimant further particularize regarding additional work days to complete the contract is related more to enabling the establishment of a defense than a function of a bill of particulars, and would be unduly burdensome upon claimant (Rusciano Constr. Corp. v. State of New York, 37 A D 2d 745). The motion should have been [1000]*1000denied in its entirety. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion denied, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Simons and Kane, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not voting.

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

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered on April 21, 1971, which granted a motion by the State of New York for a further bill of particulars. Brookfield Construction Co., Inc., filed a claim against the State in the amount of $2,972,561 for a breach of a cohstruction contract. Sixty-two causes of action were set forth, and, after a demand, a 182-page bill of particulars was served. A motion was then made for the further bill addressed to the second cause of action which relates to unreasonable interference with the construction of the project. The original bill more than adequately apprises the respondent of the nature of the claim, limits the proof and prevents surprise at the trial (State of New York v. Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Assn., 34 A D 2d 769; Holland v. Baker, 30 A D 2d 136). The State’s attempt to have claimant further particularize regarding additional work days to complete the contract is related more to enabling the establishment of a defense than a function of a bill of particulars, and would be unduly burdensome upon claimant (Rusciano Constr. Corp. v. State of New York, 37 A D 2d 745). The motion should have been [1000]*1000denied in its entirety. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion denied, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Simons and Kane, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 999, 333 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brookfield-construction-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1972.