Legal Opinion
Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 30, 1981PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Herlihy, J.
The Celotex Corporation (Celotex) manufactured and supplied components of a roofing system which a subcontractor purchased and installed in the course of erecting a school building for plaintiff in 1968 and 1969. Known as a Barrett bonded roof, the system utilized a new concept, *205introduced by Celotex or its predecessor in 1964, involving the application of preconstructed materials to form a two-layer membrane instead of a conventional four-layer product. Plaintiff contends that Celotex represented that its process was equivalent in all respects to the standard…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- De Crosta v. A. Reynolds Construction & Supply Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Cubito v. KreisbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Cubito v. KreisbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- John R. Dudley Construction, Inc. v. Drott Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- DeCrosta v. Reynolds Construction & Supply Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- New York Telephone Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- City of Niagara Falls v. RudolphAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983