Schuler-Haas Electric Corp. v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schuler-Haas Electric Corp. v. Crown Asphalt Co.

152 A.D.2d 971, 544 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9875

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 971 (Schuler-Haas Electric Corp. v. Crown Asphalt Co.) 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

Schuler-Haas Electric Corp. v. Crown Asphalt Co., 152 A.D.2d 971, 544 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly determined that a question of fact existed as to the price agreed upon by the parties. Evidence of defendant’s customary procedure of negotiating an agreed price with subcontractors and then incorporating that price, plus 7% for overhead, in its bid for public contracts can be considered on a motion for summary judgment (see, Barrow v Lawrence United Corp., 146 AD2d 15, 21; J. Sussman, Inc. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 140 AD2d 668; Dutch-American Mercantile Corp. v Cotra Corp., 285 App Div 55). We conclude that such evidence was sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to raise a factual issue as to the price agreed upon between defendant and plaintiff subcontractor. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly determined that a question of fact existed as to the price agreed upon by the parties. Evidence of defendant’s customary procedure of negotiating an agreed price with subcontractors and then incorporating that price, plus 7% for overhead, in its bid for public contracts can be considered on a motion for summary judgment (see, Barrow v Lawrence United Corp., 146 AD2d 15, 21; J. Sussman, Inc. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 140 AD2d 668; Dutch-American Mercantile Corp. v Cotra Corp., 285 App Div 55). We conclude that such evidence was sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to raise a factual issue as to the price agreed upon between defendant and plaintiff subcontractor. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 971, 544 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuler-haas-electric-corp-v-crown-asphalt-co-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack