J. I. Hass Co. v. Fred J. Brotherton, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. I. Hass Co. v. Fred J. Brotherton, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 649, 223 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 649 (J. I. Hass Co. v. Fred J. Brotherton, Inc.) 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

J. I. Hass Co. v. Fred J. Brotherton, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 649, 223 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In support of its position defendant general contractor points to a provision of its painting subcontract with plaintiff under which the latter assumed toward defendant, with respect to the painting work, all the obligations and responsibilities which defendant had assumed toward the owner. Since defendant relies essentially upon this provision in opposing plaintiff’s motion and in support of its own counterclaim, it is appropriate to note that in our opinion said provision, taken by itself, would not necessarily bar plaintiff’s claim or sustain defendant’s counterclaim. On the other hand, even if we eliminate from consideration the effect which defendant seeks to give the provision, plaintiff does not satisfactorily show that its performance complied with the remaining requirements of the contract between the parties. A trial is necessary. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

In support of its position defendant general contractor points to a provision of its painting subcontract with plaintiff under which the latter assumed toward defendant, with respect to the painting work, all the obligations and responsibilities which defendant had assumed toward the owner. Since defendant relies essentially upon this provision in opposing plaintiff’s motion and in support of its own counterclaim, it is appropriate to note that in our opinion said provision, taken by itself, would not necessarily bar plaintiff’s claim or sustain defendant’s counterclaim. On the other hand, even if we eliminate from consideration the effect which defendant seeks to give the provision, plaintiff does not satisfactorily show that its performance complied with the remaining requirements of the contract between the parties. A trial is necessary. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 649, 223 N.Y.S.2d 587, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-i-hass-co-v-fred-j-brotherton-inc-nyappdiv-1962.