Russo Associates, Inc. v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo Associates, Inc. v. County of Nassau

150 A.D.2d 665, 541 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982

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

DecidedMay 22, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 665 (Russo Associates, Inc. v. County of Nassau) 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

Russo Associates, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 150 A.D.2d 665, 541 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated February 3, 1988, which denied its motion for summary judgment, and, upon searching the record, granted the defendant summary judgment and dismissed the action.

[666]*666Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant entered into a contract with it to demolish the facade of a building for a fixed sum of $31,400. The defendant contends that this figure was included in the delivery order simply to permit the Comptroller of the County of Nassau to set aside sufficient funds and that the actual payment should be governed by the terms of a "blanket” contract previously entered into by the parties.

It is premature for the courts to intervene in this matter since the plaintiff’s claim for payment has not been audited by the Nassau County Board of Supervisors. County Law § 369 (2) provides that, except in situations not applicable here, "every claim for the payment of money shall be audited by the board of supervisors and shall be in writing and itemized.” Even if, as the plaintiff contends, it had a written contract for a fixed sum, the claim for payment would be subject to an audit. The plaintiff misconstrues this court’s decision in Eberlin & Eberlin v County of Putnam (81 AD2d 376) as supporting its contention that contractors with fixed-sum contracts do not have to comply with Nassau County audit procedures. We note that the defendant has not refused to audit the plaintiff’s claim for payment. In the event that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the results of the audit, it may seek review in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Eberlin & Eberlin v County of Putnam, supra). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, 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, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated February 3, 1988, which denied its motion for summary judgment, and, upon searching the record, granted the defendant summary judgment and dismissed the action.

[666]*666Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant entered into a contract with it to demolish the facade of a building for a fixed sum of $31,400. The defendant contends that this figure was included in the delivery order simply to permit the Comptroller of the County of Nassau to set aside sufficient funds and that the actual payment should be governed by the terms of a "blanket” contract previously entered into by the parties.

It is premature for the courts to intervene in this matter since the plaintiff’s claim for payment has not been audited by the Nassau County Board of Supervisors. County Law § 369 (2) provides that, except in situations not applicable here, "every claim for the payment of money shall be audited by the board of supervisors and shall be in writing and itemized.” Even if, as the plaintiff contends, it had a written contract for a fixed sum, the claim for payment would be subject to an audit. The plaintiff misconstrues this court’s decision in Eberlin & Eberlin v County of Putnam (81 AD2d 376) as supporting its contention that contractors with fixed-sum contracts do not have to comply with Nassau County audit procedures. We note that the defendant has not refused to audit the plaintiff’s claim for payment. In the event that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the results of the audit, it may seek review in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Eberlin & Eberlin v County of Putnam, supra). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 665, 541 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-associates-inc-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack