G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Egan

440 N.E.2d 795, 57 N.Y.2d 721, 454 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3645
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 8, 1982·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Paul A. Yesawich, Jr., at the Appellate Division to which we add only that appellant’s argument based upon Vitanza v City of New York (40 NY2d 872) is misplaced. The Vitanza case involved a plumbing contract which by State licensing statute could not be awarded to one not a licensed plumber. In the instant case, we deal with a bid condition which specified that the “Installer”, as distinct from the contractor, be listed by Underwriters Laboratories.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer. Taking no part: Judge Gabrielli.

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

G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Egan, 440 N.E.2d 795, 57 N.Y.2d 721, 454 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3645 (N.Y. 1982).

440 N.E.2d 795 (G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Egan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alca Industries, Inc. v. Delaney
248 A.D.2d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Dierks Heating Co. v. Egan
115 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. State
130 Misc. 2d 661 (New York State Court of Claims, 1985)