DALRYMPLE GRAVEL & CONTRACTING CO., INC. v. State

New York Court of Appeals

DALRYMPLE GRAVEL & CONTRACTING CO., INC. v. State

225 N.E.2d 210, 19 N.Y.2d 644, 278 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1775

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1967

DocketClaim 38594

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 N.E.2d 210 (DALRYMPLE GRAVEL & CONTRACTING CO., INC. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DALRYMPLE GRAVEL & CONTRACTING CO., INC. v. State, 225 N.E.2d 210, 19 N.Y.2d 644, 278 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1775 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. In Buffalo Elec. Co. v. State of New York (14 N Y 2d 453 [1964]) and Brandt Corp. v. City of New York (14 N Y 2d 217, 220 [1964]) we held that when a claimant accepted final payment from the State or city pursuant to its contract “it could not thereafter assert claims for additional sums which it had attempted to reserve ” upon acceptance. This in no way conflicts with our holding in this ease where the only issue is whether any valid acceptance was made. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the affirmed finding below that no acceptance was ever effected.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel.

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

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. In Buffalo Elec. Co. v. State of New York (14 N Y 2d 453 [1964]) and Brandt Corp. v. City of New York (14 N Y 2d 217, 220 [1964]) we held that when a claimant accepted final payment from the State or city pursuant to its contract “it could not thereafter assert claims for additional sums which it had attempted to reserve ” upon acceptance. This in no way conflicts with our holding in this ease where the only issue is whether any valid acceptance was made. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the affirmed finding below that no acceptance was ever effected.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 N.E.2d 210, 19 N.Y.2d 644, 278 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalrymple-gravel-contracting-co-inc-v-state-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack