Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of Education

132 A.D.2d 538, 517 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49067

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 538 (Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of Education) 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

Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of Education, 132 A.D.2d 538, 517 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 14, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim that its contract to install windows in Fort Hamilton High School did not require it to install certain items such as glass in the windows as part of the contract price is belied by the explicit provisions of the contract. The [539]*539plaintiffs claim has no merit and, for that reason, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see, CPLR 3212; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 112). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 14, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim that its contract to install windows in Fort Hamilton High School did not require it to install certain items such as glass in the windows as part of the contract price is belied by the explicit provisions of the contract. The [539]*539plaintiffs claim has no merit and, for that reason, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant (see, CPLR 3212; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 112). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 538, 517 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prote-contracting-co-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack