Makay Construction Corp. v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Makay Construction Corp. v. Board of Education

52 A.D.2d 594, 382 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12202

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

DecidedApril 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 594 (Makay Construction Corp. v. Board of Education) 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

Makay Construction Corp. v. Board of Education, 52 A.D.2d 594, 382 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 3, 1975, as [595]*595granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve (1) a verified claim, pursuant to section 3813 of the Education Law, nunc pro tunc, and (2) an amended complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances of this case, which involves a dispute as to the date when a construction contractor was declared to be in default under the terms of a contract prepared by defendant, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to comply with section 3813 of the Education Law nunc pro tunc. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 3, 1975, as [595]*595granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve (1) a verified claim, pursuant to section 3813 of the Education Law, nunc pro tunc, and (2) an amended complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances of this case, which involves a dispute as to the date when a construction contractor was declared to be in default under the terms of a contract prepared by defendant, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to comply with section 3813 of the Education Law nunc pro tunc. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 594, 382 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makay-construction-corp-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1976.