Patrick v. Whelan & Curry Construction Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patrick v. Whelan & Curry Construction Services, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 974, 755 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 974 (Patrick v. Whelan & Curry Construction Services, Inc.) 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

Patrick v. Whelan & Curry Construction Services, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 974, 755 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.), entered December 13, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.). We add only that plaintiff’s “insistence on an untenable interpretation of a key contractual provision * * * constituted an anticipatory breach of the contract” (IBM Credit Fin. Corp. v Mazda Motor [975]*975Mfg. [USA] Corp., 92 NY2d 989, 993 [1998]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.), entered December 13, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.). We add only that plaintiff’s “insistence on an untenable interpretation of a key contractual provision * * * constituted an anticipatory breach of the contract” (IBM Credit Fin. Corp. v Mazda Motor [975]*975Mfg. [USA] Corp., 92 NY2d 989, 993 [1998]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 974, 755 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-whelan-curry-construction-services-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack