Kavanagh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kavanagh v. City of New York

178 A.D. 936

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

DecidedMay 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D. 936 (Kavanagh 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

Kavanagh v. City of New York, 178 A.D. 936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the grounds (a) that plaintiff was in any event entitled to recover the expense incurred in procuring and furnishing the bond, amounting to $150, and (b) that plaintiff was entitled to prove the various acts of the public officials which constituted the breach of the contract, by making the radical change in the street improvement which made the doing of plaintiff’s contract work impossible, so as to prove the date of such breach, as that date was not admitted by the defendant and was material in determining whether or not plaintiff’s claimed other expenses were reasonably incurred. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Putnam and Blaekmar, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the grounds (a) that plaintiff was in any event entitled to recover the expense incurred in procuring and furnishing the bond, amounting to $150, and (b) that plaintiff was entitled to prove the various acts of the public officials which constituted the breach of the contract, by making the radical change in the street improvement which made the doing of plaintiff’s contract work impossible, so as to prove the date of such breach, as that date was not admitted by the defendant and was material in determining whether or not plaintiff’s claimed other expenses were reasonably incurred. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Putnam and Blaekmar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D. 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kavanagh-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1917.