Concrete Construction Corp. v. Bregman Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Concrete Construction Corp. v. Bregman Construction Corp.

23 A.D.2d 845, 259 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4128

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

DecidedMay 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 845 (Concrete Construction Corp. v. Bregman Construction Corp.) 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

Concrete Construction Corp. v. Bregman Construction Corp., 23 A.D.2d 845, 259 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of defendants vacating a mechanic’s lien and awarding defendant Bregman Construction Corporation $18,485.54 against plaintiff Concrete Construction Corporation in action for balance due on concrete subcontract and for extra work and on counterclaims for damages for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs to defendants-respondents against plaintiff-appellant. The contract provision with respect to the rate of progress for the pouring of floors in a reinforced concrete construction of a highrise apartment house was ambiguous. The court, although it eventually ruled that the contract was not ambiguous, allowed paroi evidence as to precontract negotiations as well as subsequent conversations to he introduced in evidence. Consequently, the record is complete, at least insofar as proffers of evidence are concerned. On the whole record, although the question is a very close one, the conclusion that the concrete subcontractor was obliged to progress the work at the rate found by the court is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. On the many items of extra work claimed and the many items of damage for improper performance and delay asserted by way of counterclaim, the trial court’s meticulous findings are also supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of defendants vacating a mechanic’s lien and awarding defendant Bregman Construction Corporation $18,485.54 against plaintiff Concrete Construction Corporation in action for balance due on concrete subcontract and for extra work and on counterclaims for damages for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs to defendants-respondents against plaintiff-appellant. The contract provision with respect to the rate of progress for the pouring of floors in a reinforced concrete construction of a highrise apartment house was ambiguous. The court, although it eventually ruled that the contract was not ambiguous, allowed paroi evidence as to precontract negotiations as well as subsequent conversations to he introduced in evidence. Consequently, the record is complete, at least insofar as proffers of evidence are concerned. On the whole record, although the question is a very close one, the conclusion that the concrete subcontractor was obliged to progress the work at the rate found by the court is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. On the many items of extra work claimed and the many items of damage for improper performance and delay asserted by way of counterclaim, the trial court’s meticulous findings are also supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 845, 259 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/concrete-construction-corp-v-bregman-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1965.