G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Egan

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 440 N.E.2d 795 (G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Egan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 N.E.2d 795, 57 N.Y.2d 721, 454 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-r-electrical-contractors-inc-v-egan-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack