English Construction Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

English Construction Co. v. State

233 A.D. 238

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

DecidedJune 30, 1931

DocketClaim No. 19484

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D. 238 (English Construction Co. 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

English Construction Co. v. State, 233 A.D. 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contract provides for the payment of a gross sum for the entire work. It does not fix the amount to be deducted from the contract price for the work on the Elmwood Building, which was omitted by the order of the State under article 23 of the contract. It, therefore, follows that the fixing of such amount involves a question of fact. The court below did not determine this question. While there is testimony in the record from which the value of the omitted work might be fixed by us, we think that the ends of justice will be better met by a new trial [239]*239upon which the question may be more satisfactorily resolved than by a decision on the conflicting testimony in the record as it stands.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The contract provides for the payment of a gross sum for the entire work. It does not fix the amount to be deducted from the contract price for the work on the Elmwood Building, which was omitted by the order of the State under article 23 of the contract. It, therefore, follows that the fixing of such amount involves a question of fact. The court below did not determine this question. While there is testimony in the record from which the value of the omitted work might be fixed by us, we think that the ends of justice will be better met by a new trial [239]*239upon which the question may be more satisfactorily resolved than by a decision on the conflicting testimony in the record as it stands.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-construction-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1931.