Carucci v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carucci v. City of Utica

60 A.D.2d 747, 400 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14791

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 747 (Carucci v. City of Utica) 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

Carucci v. City of Utica, 60 A.D.2d 747, 400 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously modified, on the law, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Motions made upon argument of appeal denied as moot. Memorandum: Special Term ordered that respondent B & B Sanitation, Inc., pay counsel fees in the amount of $6,500 to petitioner. The qward was presumably based on petitioner’s claim that his efforts had created a fund for the City of Utica, out of which such fees could be awarded. (Gerzof v Sweeney, 22 NY2d 297.) Inasmuch as we affirm Special Term’s finding that both contracts awarded to respondent B & B Sanitation, Inc., were legally executed, and that respondent B & B was properly compensated by the City of Utica under such contracts, no fund has been created from which petitioner could be granted an award. Petitioner’s contention that he has "saved” the City of Utica money because Special Term ordered the termination of an emergency contract for collection of garbage is without merit. Such service will have to be provided by the city by other means so that there is no money "saved”, from which an award to petitioner could be made. (Appeals from judgment and resettled order of Oneida Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Den-man and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously modified, on the law, in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Motions made upon argument of appeal denied as moot. Memorandum: Special Term ordered that respondent B & B Sanitation, Inc., pay counsel fees in the amount of $6,500 to petitioner. The qward was presumably based on petitioner’s claim that his efforts had created a fund for the City of Utica, out of which such fees could be awarded. (Gerzof v Sweeney, 22 NY2d 297.) Inasmuch as we affirm Special Term’s finding that both contracts awarded to respondent B & B Sanitation, Inc., were legally executed, and that respondent B & B was properly compensated by the City of Utica under such contracts, no fund has been created from which petitioner could be granted an award. Petitioner’s contention that he has "saved” the City of Utica money because Special Term ordered the termination of an emergency contract for collection of garbage is without merit. Such service will have to be provided by the city by other means so that there is no money "saved”, from which an award to petitioner could be made. (Appeals from judgment and resettled order of Oneida Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Den-man and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 747, 400 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carucci-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack