Flour City Architectural Metals, Inc. v. Sky-Lift Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flour City Architectural Metals, Inc. v. Sky-Lift Corp.

223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 494 (Flour City Architectural Metals, Inc. v. Sky-Lift 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

Flour City Architectural Metals, Inc. v. Sky-Lift Corp., 223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 14, 1995, which denied defendant Sky-Lift Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for payment for alleged extra work performed on the construction project since issues of fact exist with respect to, inter alia, the interpretation of the main contract and subcontract, whether the work performed constituted "extra work” and whether the work orders submitted by Sky-Lift were signed by an authorized representative of plaintiff and actually directed that the "extra” work be performed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 14, 1995, which denied defendant Sky-Lift Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for payment for alleged extra work performed on the construction project since issues of fact exist with respect to, inter alia, the interpretation of the main contract and subcontract, whether the work performed constituted "extra work” and whether the work orders submitted by Sky-Lift were signed by an authorized representative of plaintiff and actually directed that the "extra” work be performed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 494, 637 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flour-city-architectural-metals-inc-v-sky-lift-corp-nyappdiv-1996.