Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Peelle Co.

22 A.D.2d 856, 254 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2685

Opinion

Judgment dismissing complaint in action to recover for breach of contract against contractor unanimously affirmed, without costs to any party. While plaintiff-appellant makes a cognizable distinction between the right to recover for damages consequent on the breach of duty by the contractor for failure in its primary contractual duty to perform the contract as distinguished from any contractual or common-law obligation to indemnify, the court, nevertheless, feels constrained by the rationale in Semanchuck v. Fifth Ave. & 37th St. Corp. (290 N. Y. 412) and Walters v. Rao Electrical Equip. Co. (289 N. Y. 57). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, J J.

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

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Peelle Co., 22 A.D.2d 856, 254 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

22 A.D.2d 856 (Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Peelle Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walters v. Rao Electrical Equipment Co.
43 N.E.2d 810 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
Semanchuck v. Fifth Avenue & 37th Street Corp.
49 N.E.2d 507 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)