Legal Opinion
Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 13, 1989PublishedCited by 97 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Kaye, J.
In this action on a construction contract with the City of New York and the New York City Transit Authority, plaintiff contractor seeks to recover damages for additional expenses allegedly incurred as a result of unanticipated subsurface conditions, and for extra and disputed work claims. The question before us is whether a contractual provision — which the City now styles an alternate dispute resolution (ADR) provision — binds plaintiff to the determination made by the Transit Authority’s chief engineer and forecloses judicial review. For the reasons that follow,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
- In re the Arbitration between Marlene Industries Corp. & Carnac Textiles, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- In re the Arbitration between Waldron & GoddessNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Maross Construction, Inc. v. Central New York Regional Transportation AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Megaris Furs, Inc. v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Abiele Contracting, Inc. v. New York City School Construction AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.