United States Steel Corp. v. Sigmund Sommer Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

United States Steel Corp. v. Sigmund Sommer Construction Co.

45 A.D.2d 676, 356 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4806

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

DecidedJune 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 676 (United States Steel Corp. v. Sigmund Sommer Construction 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

United States Steel Corp. v. Sigmund Sommer Construction Co., 45 A.D.2d 676, 356 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 12, 1973, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by defendant Sigmund Sommer Construction Co., Inc., for similar relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of grant[677]*677ing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action of the amended complaint, and directing the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff dismissing and severing the first cause of action; and otherwise affirmed. Plaintiff-appellant-respondent shall recover of defendant-respondent-appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The “sales confirmation”, dated March 13, 1970, signed by both parties, and Sommer’s purchase order, dated June 16, 1971, prepared on Sommer’s own printed form, created binding, unambiguous written agreements between the parties for the purchase of concrete by Sommer from plaintiff. The purchase order was prepared and delivered by Sommer, in accordance with the written provision in the sales confirmation that an “appropriate P. 0. will be issued by Sommer”. The agreement of December 18, 1970, between Sommer and defendant, A. J. Quarant Contracting Co., Inc., by which the latter was hired to do excavation and foundation work and which noted that “arrangements for ready-mix cement have been made with ‘ Certified Industries ’ [plaintiff] and this arrangement is part of this contract”, did not lessen or detract from the binding nature of the purchase order prepared and executed by Sommer over six months thereafter. It is admitted that concrete was delivered to the job site and utilized as envisioned by the above documents. The facts that the cement contracted for and invoices covering same may have been delivered directly to Quarant, standing alone, do not relieve Sommer from liability. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 12, 1973, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by defendant Sigmund Sommer Construction Co., Inc., for similar relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of grant[677]*677ing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action of the amended complaint, and directing the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff dismissing and severing the first cause of action; and otherwise affirmed. Plaintiff-appellant-respondent shall recover of defendant-respondent-appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The “sales confirmation”, dated March 13, 1970, signed by both parties, and Sommer’s purchase order, dated June 16, 1971, prepared on Sommer’s own printed form, created binding, unambiguous written agreements between the parties for the purchase of concrete by Sommer from plaintiff. The purchase order was prepared and delivered by Sommer, in accordance with the written provision in the sales confirmation that an “appropriate P. 0. will be issued by Sommer”. The agreement of December 18, 1970, between Sommer and defendant, A. J. Quarant Contracting Co., Inc., by which the latter was hired to do excavation and foundation work and which noted that “arrangements for ready-mix cement have been made with ‘ Certified Industries ’ [plaintiff] and this arrangement is part of this contract”, did not lessen or detract from the binding nature of the purchase order prepared and executed by Sommer over six months thereafter. It is admitted that concrete was delivered to the job site and utilized as envisioned by the above documents. The facts that the cement contracted for and invoices covering same may have been delivered directly to Quarant, standing alone, do not relieve Sommer from liability. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 676, 356 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-steel-corp-v-sigmund-sommer-construction-co-nyappdiv-1974.