Griffiths v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffiths v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

1 A.D.2d 1020, 151 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397

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

DecidedMay 14, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1020 (Griffiths v. Yonkers Contracting Co.) 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

Griffiths v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 1 A.D.2d 1020, 151 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant in Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 from separate judgments of the County Court, Westchester County, entered against it in each action after a consolidated trial on stipulated facts. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs. Defendant contracted with the County of Westchester to do certain excavating work. The contract eoneededly contained a third-party beneficiary provision benefiting a class to which plaintiffs belong. The actions were instituted on that contract to recover damages for injuries to plaintiffs’ properties caused by blasting during the course of the work. Defendant contends that said provision, under which it accepted responsibility for all damage done as a result of said work and obligated itself to “ restore or repair at [its] * * * own expense * * * such property as was damaged during the prosecution of the work”, set up conditions precedent to direct action which eoneededly were not complied with by plaintiffs. This contention was rejected in Hale v. Ripton (234 N. Y. 631), where a similar contract was considered. Present — Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, TJghetta and Hallinan, JJ. [See 2 A D 2d 706.]

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

—Appeal by defendant in Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 from separate judgments of the County Court, Westchester County, entered against it in each action after a consolidated trial on stipulated facts. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs. Defendant contracted with the County of Westchester to do certain excavating work. The contract eoneededly contained a third-party beneficiary provision benefiting a class to which plaintiffs belong. The actions were instituted on that contract to recover damages for injuries to plaintiffs’ properties caused by blasting during the course of the work. Defendant contends that said provision, under which it accepted responsibility for all damage done as a result of said work and obligated itself to “ restore or repair at [its] * * * own expense * * * such property as was damaged during the prosecution of the work”, set up conditions precedent to direct action which eoneededly were not complied with by plaintiffs. This contention was rejected in Hale v. Ripton (234 N. Y. 631), where a similar contract was considered. Present — Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, TJghetta and Hallinan, JJ. [See 2 A D 2d 706.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1020, 151 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffiths-v-yonkers-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack