DeMartini v. Elade Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeMartini v. Elade Realty Corp.

267 A.D. 774, 45 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6202

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 774 (DeMartini v. Elade Realty 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

DeMartini v. Elade Realty Corp., 267 A.D. 774, 45 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to recover damages for breach-of .contract. Order of the County Court of Nassau County denying motion to strike out for insufficiency the second and third partial defenses and counterclaims reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The contract contains no language requiring the plaintiff to install curbs and lay sidewalks. It merely sets forth an agreed price for such services under the caption “Extra Work.” That this term was employed in accordance with its ordinary meaning as work independent of the contract and not required in its performance (Shields v. City of New York, 84 App. Div. 502, 505; Fetterolf v. S. é L. Construction Co., 175 App. Div. 177, 179) is evident from the fact that these items are not included in the “ Scope of Work” provision of the contract. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. [See-pos#, p. 870.]

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

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to recover damages for breach-of .contract. Order of the County Court of Nassau County denying motion to strike out for insufficiency the second and third partial defenses and counterclaims reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The contract contains no language requiring the plaintiff to install curbs and lay sidewalks. It merely sets forth an agreed price for such services under the caption “Extra Work.” That this term was employed in accordance with its ordinary meaning as work independent of the contract and not required in its performance (Shields v. City of New York, 84 App. Div. 502, 505; Fetterolf v. S. é L. Construction Co., 175 App. Div. 177, 179) is evident from the fact that these items are not included in the “ Scope of Work” provision of the contract. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. [See-pos#, p. 870.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 774, 45 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demartini-v-elade-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack