Civetta Contracting Corp. v. Westerly Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Civetta Contracting Corp. v. Westerly Associates, Inc.

32 A.D.2d 900, 302 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 900 (Civetta Contracting Corp. v. Westerly Associates, Inc.) 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

Civetta Contracting Corp. v. Westerly Associates, Inc., 32 A.D.2d 900, 302 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered January 7, 1969, unanimously modified on the law by vacating the judgment entered herein and substituting therefor summary judgment to plaintiff in the sum of $6,422 with interest and severing the causes of action as to the balance of plaintiff’s claim and as so modified otherwise affirmed without costs or disbursements to any party. Plaintiff sues the corporate defendants on a construction contract and the individual defendants as guarantors for the performance of the corporations. Suit is for the balance withheld on the contract price, amounting to $5,572, and $29,528.68 as extras. Special Term granted summary judgment. We agree that no issue was presented as to the balance due. As to the extras, there are issues presented as to whether these come within the terms of the contract, except as to one item amounting to $850. The order directing summary judgment is consequently modified to direct judgment for these items only, leaving the balance for the outcome of the trial. Special Term properly disposed of the motion for leave to amend the answer. All of the so-called defenses which would properly tend to defeat recovery are provable by virtue of the denials in the answer. Concur—■ -Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered January 7, 1969, unanimously modified on the law by vacating the judgment entered herein and substituting therefor summary judgment to plaintiff in the sum of $6,422 with interest and severing the causes of action as to the balance of plaintiff’s claim and as so modified otherwise affirmed without costs or disbursements to any party. Plaintiff sues the corporate defendants on a construction contract and the individual defendants as guarantors for the performance of the corporations. Suit is for the balance withheld on the contract price, amounting to $5,572, and $29,528.68 as extras. Special Term granted summary judgment. We agree that no issue was presented as to the balance due. As to the extras, there are issues presented as to whether these come within the terms of the contract, except as to one item amounting to $850. The order directing summary judgment is consequently modified to direct judgment for these items only, leaving the balance for the outcome of the trial. Special Term properly disposed of the motion for leave to amend the answer. All of the so-called defenses which would properly tend to defeat recovery are provable by virtue of the denials in the answer. Concur—■ -Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 900, 302 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/civetta-contracting-corp-v-westerly-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1969.