Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Concrete Steel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Concrete Steel Co.

281 A.D. 965, 120 N.Y.S.2d 796

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

DecidedApril 21, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 965 (Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Concrete Steel 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

Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Concrete Steel Co., 281 A.D. 965, 120 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam.

The complaint alleges defendant’s breach of a contract by failure to deliver to plaintiff such steel bars as would be required in the erection of a designated building-, and by failure to render certain services in installing the same. It contains an allegation which given its broadest intendment may be construed to allege that there was an agreed price for each bar depending on size, which was to include the service rendered in installing the same. It I hen alleges that plaintiff, because of the failure to deliver, was compelled to meet certain specific increased expenditures in completing the building. We think that this complaint sets forth a cause of action, even though the sizes and prices of the bars are not specified. This information may be supplied by way of a bill of particulars. Nor would it invalidate the complaint, if it be assumed that the proper measure of damages is not alleged (Winter v. American Aniline Products, 236 N. Y. 199; Colrick v. Swinburne, 105 N. Y. 503).

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

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

Per Guriam.

The complaint alleges defendant’s breach of a contract by failure to deliver to plaintiff such steel bars as would be required in the erection of a designated building-, and by failure to render certain services in installing the same. It contains an allegation which given its broadest intendment may be construed to allege that there was an agreed price for each bar depending on size, which was to include the service rendered in installing the same. It I hen alleges that plaintiff, because of the failure to deliver, was compelled to meet certain specific increased expenditures in completing the building. We think that this complaint sets forth a cause of action, even though the sizes and prices of the bars are not specified. This information may be supplied by way of a bill of particulars. Nor would it invalidate the complaint, if it be assumed that the proper measure of damages is not alleged (Winter v. American Aniline Products, 236 N. Y. 199; Colrick v. Swinburne, 105 N. Y. 503).

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 965, 120 N.Y.S.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-starrett-co-v-concrete-steel-co-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack