Legal Opinion · Dissent

Frank Nordone Contracting Co. v. City of New York

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

Decided December 28, 1945PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentMartin, P. J.

The plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action, which is the usual type brought against the City when the contractor has found the work more costly than anticipated. There are several reasons for such a conclusion.

The proposals for bids included in the contract between the appellant and the respondent advised prospective bidders that “Before bidding, Contractors must satisfy themselves by personal examination of the Plans, Specifications, Contract, and location of the proposed work and by such other means as they may prefer, as to the accuracy of the * * * statement and they must…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sweet v. . MorrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Weston v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
  3. Dunn v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  4. Oakhill Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
  5. Dean v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Laura Roofing & Renovating Co. v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API