Legal Opinion
City of Salamanca v. Rocell Construction Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 29, 1960PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtMichael Catalano, J.
The city moves under section 96 of the Civil Practice Act to consolidate Action No. 2 with Action No. 1.
The moving affidavits show that during the years 1958 and 1959 the city agreed to furnish Rocell (referring to Rocell Construction Co., Inc., herein) with certain work, labor and services in performing the latter’s contract with the State of New York’s Department of Public Works for the construction of an arterial highway project on Central Avenue in said city, known as Route 219; that Actions No. 1 and No. 2 are the same; that the parties, witnesses and attorneys are the same; that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gibbs v. SokolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Lee v. SchmeltzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Brink's Express Co. v. BurnsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Cohoes Bronze Co. v. Georgia Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Van Devort v. K. & H. Evaporating Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blank v. Meadow Park Clothes, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1968