Walter Sign Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walter Sign Corp. v. State

22 A.D.2d 740, 253 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1964

DocketClaim No. 41572

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 740 (Walter Sign Corp. 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

Walter Sign Corp. v. State, 22 A.D.2d 740, 253 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The claim is barred by virtue of. the provision of the contract that “the final payment shall constitute and operate as a release”; as this was the effect of the receipt and collection by the surety company, the holder of an. assignment of moneys due and to become due, of the State’s cheek for the “final payment”, the surety being a person “ claiming by or through ” the contractor, within the meaning of the contract. (Brandt Corp. v. City of New York, 14 N Y 2d 217; and see Buffalo Elec. Co. v. State of New York, 14 N Y 2d 453.) The motion to dismiss should, therefore, have been granted. Indeed, claimant did not oppose the motion nor did it respond to this appeal. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The claim is barred by virtue of. the provision of the contract that “the final payment shall constitute and operate as a release”; as this was the effect of the receipt and collection by the surety company, the holder of an. assignment of moneys due and to become due, of the State’s cheek for the “final payment”, the surety being a person “ claiming by or through ” the contractor, within the meaning of the contract. (Brandt Corp. v. City of New York, 14 N Y 2d 217; and see Buffalo Elec. Co. v. State of New York, 14 N Y 2d 453.) The motion to dismiss should, therefore, have been granted. Indeed, claimant did not oppose the motion nor did it respond to this appeal. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 740, 253 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-sign-corp-v-state-nyappdiv-1964.