Schooley Enterprises, Inc. v. Paso Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schooley Enterprises, Inc. v. Paso Contracting Corp.

33 A.D.2d 981, 307 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 981 (Schooley Enterprises, Inc. v. Paso Contracting Corp.) 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

Schooley Enterprises, Inc. v. Paso Contracting Corp., 33 A.D.2d 981, 307 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff as obligee and defendant Paso Contracting Corporation as principal, without the concurrence of defendant Aetna Insurance Company as surety, undertook by contract to alter the terms of the original contract between the parties by reducing from $15,000 to $2,500 the amount to be retained by the obligee from the value of the work actually done under the contract by the principal until the final completion thereof. Such an alteration of the original agreement of the parties so affected the interests of the surety as to discharge the surety obligation. (See St. John’s College v. Aetna Ins. Co., 201 N. Y. 335-341.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion for summary judgment in action on contract.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff as obligee and defendant Paso Contracting Corporation as principal, without the concurrence of defendant Aetna Insurance Company as surety, undertook by contract to alter the terms of the original contract between the parties by reducing from $15,000 to $2,500 the amount to be retained by the obligee from the value of the work actually done under the contract by the principal until the final completion thereof. Such an alteration of the original agreement of the parties so affected the interests of the surety as to discharge the surety obligation. (See St. John’s College v. Aetna Ins. Co., 201 N. Y. 335-341.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion for summary judgment in action on contract.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 981, 307 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schooley-enterprises-inc-v-paso-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack