Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rusciano & Son Corp. v. State

Rusciano & Son Corp. v. State

281 A.D. 733, 118 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 1952
DocketClaim No. 30274
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 733 (Rusciano & Son Corp. v. State) 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
Rusciano & Son Corp. v. State, 281 A.D. 733, 118 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

—Claimant has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing certain items of its claim. On August 20, 1947, claimant entered into an agreement with the State of New York for the construction of a portion of the Van Wyek Expressway in the county of Queens for the sum of $2,558,748. The major portion of the work to be performed under this contract was the construction of a trunk sewer for a distance of about one and one half miles. The record indicates that claimant agreed to build 2,332 linear feet of trunk sewer 6' 6" x 8' 0" for $125 per linear foot, or $291,500; 2,812 linear feet of trunk sewer 8' 0" x 8' 0" for $125 per linear foot, or $351,500; 412 linear feet of trunk sewer 9' 0" x 8' 0" for $165 per linear foot, or $67,980. (Items 520-A, 520-B, 520-C respectively of the itemized proposal, p. 14, in Claimant’s Ex. 7, the contract documents.) The price for the construction of these three items was $710,980. Claimant now claims that it should have been paid $253,950 for the 84,650 cubic yards of trench excavation in the construction of the trunk sewer under these items, $36,630 for the 12,210 barrels of Portland cement used in the construction of the trunk sewer under these items and $7,140 for the 2,040 barrels of natural cement used in the construction of the trunk sewer under these items. It is the position of the State that under the terms of the contract claimant was required to include and did include in the price bid per foot for the construction of the trunk sewer the cost of trench excavation, Portland cement and natural cement necessary to complete the work of constructing the trunk sewer and that it has been paid therefor. The Court of Claims found (202 Mise. 368): that the price bid per linear foot included the [734]*734excavation necessary to install trunk sewer items 520-A, 520-B and 520-C; that the price bid per linear foot included the Portland cement necessary to complete the work under trunk sewer items 520-A, 520-B and 520-C; that the price bid per linear foot included the natural cement necessary to complete the work under trunk sewer items 520-A, 520-B and 520-C. The evidence sustains the determination of the Court of Claims. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Heffernan, J. P., Brewster, Bergan, Coon and Halpern, JJ. [201 Mise. 690.] [See post, p. 930.]

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

Related

Fehlhaber Corp. v. State
63 Misc. 2d 298 (New York State Court of Claims, 1970)
Amadeus, Inc. v. State
55 Misc. 2d 27 (New York State Court of Claims, 1967)
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. State
25 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Zara Contracting Co. v. State
42 Misc. 2d 737 (New York State Court of Claims, 1964)
Byrne Construction Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority
19 A.D.2d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
John Arborio, Inc. v. State
41 Misc. 2d 145 (New York State Court of Claims, 1963)
Buffalo Electric Co. v. State
17 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port of New York Authority
33 Misc. 2d 1028 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Tomlinson Construction Co. v. State
30 Misc. 2d 1010 (New York State Court of Claims, 1961)
Byrne Construction Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority
30 Misc. 2d 980 (New York State Court of Claims, 1961)
Buffalo Electric Co. v. State
27 Misc. 2d 527 (New York State Court of Claims, 1961)
Bianchi v. State
27 Misc. 2d 524 (New York State Court of Claims, 1961)
Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton v. State
27 Misc. 2d 506 (New York State Court of Claims, 1960)
Trimpoli v. State
21 Misc. 2d 67 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
Mark v. State
21 Misc. 2d 63 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
L. G. De Felice & Son, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority
18 Misc. 2d 503 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
D'Angelo v. State
7 Misc. 2d 783 (New York State Court of Claims, 1957)
Subterrane Corp. v. City of New York
11 Misc. 2d 566 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Lenart Constructors, Inc. v. State
6 Misc. 2d 473 (New York State Court of Claims, 1957)
Harnett Co. v. New York State Thruway Authority
3 Misc. 2d 257 (New York State Court of Claims, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D. 733, 118 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusciano-son-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1952.