Mergentime Corp. v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mergentime Corp. v. State of New York

152 A.D.2d 659, 544 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10338

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1989

DocketClaim No. 75070

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 659 (Mergentime Corp. v. State 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

Mergentime Corp. v. State of New York, 152 A.D.2d 659, 544 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover [660]*660damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Benza, J.), dated June 10, 1988, which granted summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature, without prejudice to refile.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the claimant’s position, the Court of Claims did not err in dismissing the breach of contract claim as premature. The record reflects that the contract work had not been substantially performed on the date the claim was served (see, 13 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 37.132 [3d rev ed]) nor had the claimant requested final payment thereunder (see, Forest-Fehlhaber v State of New York, 74 AD2d 272). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover [660]*660damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Benza, J.), dated June 10, 1988, which granted summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature, without prejudice to refile.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the claimant’s position, the Court of Claims did not err in dismissing the breach of contract claim as premature. The record reflects that the contract work had not been substantially performed on the date the claim was served (see, 13 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 37.132 [3d rev ed]) nor had the claimant requested final payment thereunder (see, Forest-Fehlhaber v State of New York, 74 AD2d 272). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 659, 544 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mergentime-corp-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack