Seglin Construction Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seglin Construction Co. v. State

262 A.D. 782

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

DecidedMay 7, 1941

DocketClaim No. 23906

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 782 (Seglin Construction Co. 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

Seglin Construction Co. v. State, 262 A.D. 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant had a contract with the State for the erection of a number of buildings at the Brooklyn State Hospital, Creedmoor Division. After the work was completed claimant brought an action for breach of contract. The Court of Claims made a small award in its favor.' The claim involves exterior brick work, interior brick work, extra work and delays in the execution of the contract. The court below found that the changes regarding the brick work were made without protest on claimant’s part and in many instances it had consented to such changes. The court also found that the State was not responsible for the delay. The evidence sustains the findings. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan. Schenek and Foster, JJ.

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

Claimant had a contract with the State for the erection of a number of buildings at the Brooklyn State Hospital, Creedmoor Division. After the work was completed claimant brought an action for breach of contract. The Court of Claims made a small award in its favor.' The claim involves exterior brick work, interior brick work, extra work and delays in the execution of the contract. The court below found that the changes regarding the brick work were made without protest on claimant’s part and in many instances it had consented to such changes. The court also found that the State was not responsible for the delay. The evidence sustains the findings. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan. Schenek and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seglin-construction-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1941.