Crag Erectors, Inc. v. P. P. G. Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crag Erectors, Inc. v. P. P. G. Industries, Inc.

51 A.D.2d 667, 378 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 667 (Crag Erectors, Inc. v. P. P. G. Industries, 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

Crag Erectors, Inc. v. P. P. G. Industries, Inc., 51 A.D.2d 667, 378 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On this motion for summary judgment by defendants PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) and Wilmorite, Inc., we find that, at this early state of the litigation at least, a question of fact exists as to whether PPG has waived or should be estopped from raising its contract defenses against plaintiff Crag Industries, Inc. (see Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 NY 380, 387; La Rose v Backer, 11 AD2d 314, 319-320, amd 11 AD2d 969, affd 11 NY2d 760). Likewise, as to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Wilmorite, Inc., a question of fact exists with regard to the existence of a quasi contract (see Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192, 196-197). Moreover, plaintiff argues that by its general contract with Crittenden Boulevard Housing Company, defendant Wilmorite assumed affirmative duties of supervision that all subcontracts necessary to the completion of the project would be properly performed; that as a subsubcontractor plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable party who would act in reliance upon the proper exercise of this affirmative duty of supervision; and that plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove its action in tort against Wilmorite for damages resulting from the alleged violation of this [668]*668affirmative duty. We conclude that this is a valid extension of the principles enunciated in the breach of sales warranty cases (see, e.g., Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 NY2d 395, 402; Velez v Crane & Clark LBR. Corp., 33 NY2d 117, 124-125; Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342; Goldberg v Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 NY2d 432, 436), and that plaintiff may proceed on this theory as well. We find no abuse of discretion in Special Term’s grant of further disclosure to plaintiff. However, in the interests of justice and expedition of this lawsuit we find that Wilmorite, Inc., should be granted permission, if it wishes within 10 days of the entry of this order, to amend its answer to the cross claim of PPG to plead that by release made to Wilmorite, Inc., PPG is barred from asserting its cross claim (CPLR 3018, subd [b]; 3019, subd [d]; 3025, subd [b]), but PPG should also be granted 20 days thereafter in which to serve its reply thereto. (Appeals from order of Monroe Supreme Court in action for breach of contract.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On this motion for summary judgment by defendants PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) and Wilmorite, Inc., we find that, at this early state of the litigation at least, a question of fact exists as to whether PPG has waived or should be estopped from raising its contract defenses against plaintiff Crag Industries, Inc. (see Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 NY 380, 387; La Rose v Backer, 11 AD2d 314, 319-320, amd 11 AD2d 969, affd 11 NY2d 760). Likewise, as to plaintiff’s claim against defendant Wilmorite, Inc., a question of fact exists with regard to the existence of a quasi contract (see Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192, 196-197). Moreover, plaintiff argues that by its general contract with Crittenden Boulevard Housing Company, defendant Wilmorite assumed affirmative duties of supervision that all subcontracts necessary to the completion of the project would be properly performed; that as a subsubcontractor plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable party who would act in reliance upon the proper exercise of this affirmative duty of supervision; and that plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove its action in tort against Wilmorite for damages resulting from the alleged violation of this [668]*668affirmative duty. We conclude that this is a valid extension of the principles enunciated in the breach of sales warranty cases (see, e.g., Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 NY2d 395, 402; Velez v Crane & Clark LBR. Corp., 33 NY2d 117, 124-125; Codling v Paglia, 32 NY2d 330, 342; Goldberg v Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 NY2d 432, 436), and that plaintiff may proceed on this theory as well. We find no abuse of discretion in Special Term’s grant of further disclosure to plaintiff. However, in the interests of justice and expedition of this lawsuit we find that Wilmorite, Inc., should be granted permission, if it wishes within 10 days of the entry of this order, to amend its answer to the cross claim of PPG to plead that by release made to Wilmorite, Inc., PPG is barred from asserting its cross claim (CPLR 3018, subd [b]; 3019, subd [d]; 3025, subd [b]), but PPG should also be granted 20 days thereafter in which to serve its reply thereto. (Appeals from order of Monroe Supreme Court in action for breach of contract.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 667, 378 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crag-erectors-inc-v-p-p-g-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack