Garofano Construction Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garofano Construction Co. v. City of New York

4 A.D.2d 1021, 169 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 1021 (Garofano Construction Co. v. City of New York) 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

Garofano Construction Co. v. City of New York, 4 A.D.2d 1021, 169 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

can see no ambiguity in the contract between the parties or that there was occasion to submit any issue, other than one of damages, to the jury. The plans quite clearly indicated that all of the property in question, except the crane, was to become the property of the contractor, and equally clearly indicated that the crane was not in this category. The court should have so decided the issue as a matter of construction of the contract. The jury’s verdict accorded with what the decision should have been [1022]*1022in all respects except as to the crane. That piece of property was erroneously awarded to the plaintiff. Judgment appealed from modified to remit the action to Trial Term for a reassessment of damages, excluding the crane, and for the entry of judgment upon the reassessment. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Valente, JJ.

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

can see no ambiguity in the contract between the parties or that there was occasion to submit any issue, other than one of damages, to the jury. The plans quite clearly indicated that all of the property in question, except the crane, was to become the property of the contractor, and equally clearly indicated that the crane was not in this category. The court should have so decided the issue as a matter of construction of the contract. The jury’s verdict accorded with what the decision should have been [1022]*1022in all respects except as to the crane. That piece of property was erroneously awarded to the plaintiff. Judgment appealed from modified to remit the action to Trial Term for a reassessment of damages, excluding the crane, and for the entry of judgment upon the reassessment. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 1021, 169 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garofano-construction-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1957.