Melwood Construction Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melwood Construction Corp. v. State

119 A.D.2d 734, 501 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55660

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

DecidedApril 21, 1986

DocketClaim No. 63926

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 734 (Melwood Construction Corp. v. State) 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

Melwood Construction Corp. v. State, 119 A.D.2d 734, 501 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims, dated November 16, 1984, which dismissed the claim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the decision and supplemental decision of Judge Weisberg of the Court of Claims.

In addition, contrary to the claimant’s contentions on this appeal, the record does not support a finding that actions of the Department of Transportation contributed to construction delays, thereby abrogating the contract’s liquidated damage provision (see, Babylon Assoc. v County of Suffolk, 101 AD2d 207, 217). Nor does the record support the claimant’s contention that the Department of Transportation fraudulently misrepresented to claimant that the construction project could be completed within one year when one year was an unreasonably short period (see, Albert Saggese, Inc. v Town of Hempstead, 100 AD2d 885, mod on other grounds 64 NY2d 908). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a claim to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims, dated November 16, 1984, which dismissed the claim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the decision and supplemental decision of Judge Weisberg of the Court of Claims.

In addition, contrary to the claimant’s contentions on this appeal, the record does not support a finding that actions of the Department of Transportation contributed to construction delays, thereby abrogating the contract’s liquidated damage provision (see, Babylon Assoc. v County of Suffolk, 101 AD2d 207, 217). Nor does the record support the claimant’s contention that the Department of Transportation fraudulently misrepresented to claimant that the construction project could be completed within one year when one year was an unreasonably short period (see, Albert Saggese, Inc. v Town of Hempstead, 100 AD2d 885, mod on other grounds 64 NY2d 908). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 734, 501 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melwood-construction-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack