Dowd v. State

239 A.D. 141, 267 N.Y.S. 358, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7974
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 20, 1933
DocketClaim No. 19617
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 141 (Dowd v. State) 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
Dowd v. State, 239 A.D. 141, 267 N.Y.S. 358, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The provision of the contract making the final estimate of the engineer conclusive and binding upon the contractor is fatal to recovery here in the absence of bad faith, corruption or palpable mistake appearing on the face of the estimate. (Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19; Perkins v. Giles, 50 id. 228; Barash v. Board of Education, 226 App. Div. 249; Molloy v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 145 id. 483; Sewer Commissioners v. Sullivan, 162 N. Y. 594, affg. 11 App. Div. 472.) As this provision of the contract seems not to have been considered by the Court of Claims, a new trial is ordered so that matters relating thereto may be fully litigated.

There are other serious questions involved. As to the item of overhaul,” the contractor agreed to carry out an estimated 300,000 cubic yards per 100 feet overhaul for no cents per cubic yard per 100 feet. The contract also reserved to the State the right to make such additions, deductions or changes as it deemed necessary. and provided that no claim should be made by the contractor for any loss of anticipated profits because of any such change or by reason of any variation between the approximate quantities and the quantities of the work as done. We doubt under these clauses whether the State is required to pay for additional overhaul even if resulting from a change in the plan unless at least the total overhaul exceeds the estimated 300,000 cubic yards per 100 feet.

As to the item for excavation, the contract fixes the method of measurement. Computation based on truck loadings cannot prevail over estimates based upon the contract method of measurement unless at least it is shown to be impossible for the contractor or his assignee to employ the method of measurement stipulated in the contract.

As to the item relating to grading shoulders, we find no satisfactory evidence as to the surface graded, and as to the amount of reinforcing material used the finding of the Court of Claims is against the weight of the evidence..

The judgment should be reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant, State of New York, to abide the event. Findings of fact Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 25 contained in the decision and Nos. 4, 5, 6, 14, 18, 22 and 23 contained in the claimant's proposed findings are disapproved and reversed upon the facts.

All concur, Crosby, J., on the law, in result.

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed.

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

Related

BOARD OF WATER & SEWER COM'RS v. Bill Harbert Const. Co.
870 So. 2d 699 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York
138 A.D.2d 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Bero Construction Corp. v. State
44 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Yonkers Contracting Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority
250 N.E.2d 27 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
Posillico Construction Co. v. State
31 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Joseph Davis, Inc. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.
27 A.D.2d 114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Yonkers Contracting Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority
26 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. v. State
41 Misc. 2d 804 (New York State Court of Claims, 1964)
Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port of New York Authority
18 A.D.2d 1001 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Williamson & Adams, Inc. v. State
178 Misc. 130 (New York State Court of Claims, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D. 141, 267 N.Y.S. 358, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowd-v-state-nyappdiv-1933.