William E. Bouley Co. v. EMA Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William E. Bouley Co. v. EMA Holding Corp.

54 A.D.2d 601, 387 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 601 (William E. Bouley Co. v. EMA Holding Corp.) 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

William E. Bouley Co. v. EMA Holding Corp., 54 A.D.2d 601, 387 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: On July 7, 1974 premises owned by defendant, third-party plaintiff EMA, were destroyed' by fire and EMA hired third-party defendant National Fire Adjustment Co., Inc., to adjust the loss with EMA’s insurer. Plaintiff, William E. Bouley Co., Inc., a contractor, supplied estimates for the cost of reconstruction and now sues EMA for the value of its services rendered in supplying these estimates. EMA then instituted a third-party action seeking a determination that National was responsible for plaintiff’s charges and National asserted a counterclaim against EMA in which it alleged nonpayment by EMA seeking to recover on the contract for the adjustment services performed. Special Term granted National’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, and dismissed EMA’s third-party complaint. The moving papers contain evidence that plaintiff was retained at the urging of EMA to prepare cost estimates in connection with the adjustment of EMA’s fire loss, that acting as EMA’s adjuster the third-party defendant worked with plaintiff, used its estimates in obtaining a settlement satisfactory to EMA, and that the third-party defendant told EMA it would pay plaintiff a reasonable fee for its services. Thus, there are issues of fact as to whether the contract of employment between EMA and third-party defendant was modified to provide that third-party defendant would be responsible for plaintiff’s reasonable compensation, and if so, the amount of that compensation (Appeal from order and judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: On July 7, 1974 premises owned by defendant, third-party plaintiff EMA, were destroyed' by fire and EMA hired third-party defendant National Fire Adjustment Co., Inc., to adjust the loss with EMA’s insurer. Plaintiff, William E. Bouley Co., Inc., a contractor, supplied estimates for the cost of reconstruction and now sues EMA for the value of its services rendered in supplying these estimates. EMA then instituted a third-party action seeking a determination that National was responsible for plaintiff’s charges and National asserted a counterclaim against EMA in which it alleged nonpayment by EMA seeking to recover on the contract for the adjustment services performed. Special Term granted National’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, and dismissed EMA’s third-party complaint. The moving papers contain evidence that plaintiff was retained at the urging of EMA to prepare cost estimates in connection with the adjustment of EMA’s fire loss, that acting as EMA’s adjuster the third-party defendant worked with plaintiff, used its estimates in obtaining a settlement satisfactory to EMA, and that the third-party defendant told EMA it would pay plaintiff a reasonable fee for its services. Thus, there are issues of fact as to whether the contract of employment between EMA and third-party defendant was modified to provide that third-party defendant would be responsible for plaintiff’s reasonable compensation, and if so, the amount of that compensation (Appeal from order and judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 601, 387 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-e-bouley-co-v-ema-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1976.