Queens Structure Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Queens Structure Corp. v. City of New York

90 A.D.2d 541, 455 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18595

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 541 (Queens Structure Corp. v. City 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

Queens Structure Corp. v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 541, 455 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 15, 1981, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce for discovery and inspection certain engineering reports prepared by defendant’s consultant. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The engineering reports withheld by defendant were prepared in the performance of a specific claim procedure set forth in the parties’ contract in order to determine whether said claim should be honored and, accordingly, they should be disclosed (see Cayuga-Crimmins Co. v Fisher, 63 AD2d 991, 992). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 15, 1981, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce for discovery and inspection certain engineering reports prepared by defendant’s consultant. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The engineering reports withheld by defendant were prepared in the performance of a specific claim procedure set forth in the parties’ contract in order to determine whether said claim should be honored and, accordingly, they should be disclosed (see Cayuga-Crimmins Co. v Fisher, 63 AD2d 991, 992). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 541, 455 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queens-structure-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack