Russo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. City of New York

38 A.D.2d 803, 330 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 803 (Russo 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

Russo v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 803, 330 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Appellate Term, New York County, entered on August 16, 1968, and the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, entered on January 11, 1968, denying motion of defendant for summary judgment, dismissing complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The plaintiff has not only received final payment pursuant to his contract, which equates acceptance of such payment with a release, but in addition, the city has no power or right, if it were so disposed, to exempt plaintiff from the effect of a change of governmental policy, as represented by a regulation of general application, enacted pursuant to law for the common good. It may be unfortunate the contract resulted in a distress for the plaintiff, but the city is in no way legally responsible for this. (John F. Egan, Inc. v. City of New York, 17 N Y 2d 90, 98.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Order, Appellate Term, New York County, entered on August 16, 1968, and the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, entered on January 11, 1968, denying motion of defendant for summary judgment, dismissing complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The plaintiff has not only received final payment pursuant to his contract, which equates acceptance of such payment with a release, but in addition, the city has no power or right, if it were so disposed, to exempt plaintiff from the effect of a change of governmental policy, as represented by a regulation of general application, enacted pursuant to law for the common good. It may be unfortunate the contract resulted in a distress for the plaintiff, but the city is in no way legally responsible for this. (John F. Egan, Inc. v. City of New York, 17 N Y 2d 90, 98.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 803, 330 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1972.