Staniloff v. Ferguson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Staniloff v. Ferguson

246 A.D. 630

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 630 (Staniloff v. Ferguson) 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

Staniloff v. Ferguson, 246 A.D. 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for alleged unskillful work and defective materials in a construction contract dated January 19, 1929, which provided that the construction should be made according to specifications and drawings prepared by an architect. Payment was made by plaintiffs by the execution of a second mortgage on the property for $2,600. The damages now claimed are upwards of $2,300, The action was begun December 4, 1934. In the meantime the [631]*631plaintiffs had paid interest on the bond and mortgage given in consideration of the construction work and thereby ratified its completion in accordance with the terms of the plans and specifications. Order of the County Court of Rockland county granting summary judgment for the defendant dismissing the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for alleged unskillful work and defective materials in a construction contract dated January 19, 1929, which provided that the construction should be made according to specifications and drawings prepared by an architect. Payment was made by plaintiffs by the execution of a second mortgage on the property for $2,600. The damages now claimed are upwards of $2,300, The action was begun December 4, 1934. In the meantime the [631]*631plaintiffs had paid interest on the bond and mortgage given in consideration of the construction work and thereby ratified its completion in accordance with the terms of the plans and specifications. Order of the County Court of Rockland county granting summary judgment for the defendant dismissing the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staniloff-v-ferguson-nyappdiv-1935.