State University Construction Fund v. Kipphut & Neuman Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State University Construction Fund v. Kipphut & Neuman Co.

91 A.D.2d 1167, 459 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16506

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1167 (State University Construction Fund v. Kipphut & Neuman 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

State University Construction Fund v. Kipphut & Neuman Co., 91 A.D.2d 1167, 459 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order affirmed, without costs. All concur, Simons, J., not participating. Memorandum: Although Kewaunee Scientific Corporation is a contractor bound by, and entitled to, the benefit of the subrogation waiver clause, it is also a manufacturer and, under the exclusionary clause, it is subject to suit for damage caused by alleged defects in the materials it furnished under its contract. The only claimed basis for recovery against the defendant Kipphut and Neuman was because of its defective workmanship in providing and installing the wrong size nipple, not because of any defect in materials supplied under its contract. Thus, it did not fall within the exclusionary clause. The motion of Gardner Construction Company was properly denied since it presented insufficient evidence of its status as a party entitled to the benefit of the subrogation waiver clause. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order affirmed, without costs. All concur, Simons, J., not participating. Memorandum: Although Kewaunee Scientific Corporation is a contractor bound by, and entitled to, the benefit of the subrogation waiver clause, it is also a manufacturer and, under the exclusionary clause, it is subject to suit for damage caused by alleged defects in the materials it furnished under its contract. The only claimed basis for recovery against the defendant Kipphut and Neuman was because of its defective workmanship in providing and installing the wrong size nipple, not because of any defect in materials supplied under its contract. Thus, it did not fall within the exclusionary clause. The motion of Gardner Construction Company was properly denied since it presented insufficient evidence of its status as a party entitled to the benefit of the subrogation waiver clause. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1167, 459 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-university-construction-fund-v-kipphut-neuman-co-nyappdiv-1983.