Najjar Industries, Inc. v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Najjar Industries, Inc. v. City of New York

439 N.E.2d 874, 57 N.Y.2d 647, 454 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3597

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 874 (Najjar Industries, Inc. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Najjar Industries, Inc. v. City of New York, 439 N.E.2d 874, 57 N.Y.2d 647, 454 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3597 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION of the court

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The “release” signed by plaintiffs confirmed their agreement expressed in change order 1M-5 to accept the contract unit price for installation of the 22-foot extension of 42-inch sewer pipe, and precluded, as a matter of law, their subsequent attempt to litigate the issue of price to be paid for that work. The disposition of plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action concerning subsurface conditions encountered on the project involves only factual determinations which are not within this court’s power to review.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer. Taking no part: Judge Gabrielli.

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

OPINION of the court

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The “release” signed by plaintiffs confirmed their agreement expressed in change order 1M-5 to accept the contract unit price for installation of the 22-foot extension of 42-inch sewer pipe, and precluded, as a matter of law, their subsequent attempt to litigate the issue of price to be paid for that work. The disposition of plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action concerning subsurface conditions encountered on the project involves only factual determinations which are not within this court’s power to review.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer. Taking no part: Judge Gabrielli.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.E.2d 874, 57 N.Y.2d 647, 454 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najjar-industries-inc-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack