Legal Opinion
Ardsley Construction Co. v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 15, 1981PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
The determination made by the engineer of the Port Authority pursuant to the disputes provision of their contract is conclusive and forecloses appellants’ present claims for relief.
In 1965 appellants and the Port Authority entered into a contract for certain structural repairs on a vehicular via*877duct known as Outerbridge Crossing. Subsequently, appellants subcontracted full responsibility for a portion of the work relating to the fabrication and installation of expansion dams to Fairmont Fabricators. Following completion of the job,, Fairmont through appellants made claims…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port of New York AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port of New York AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
4Cited by14 opinions
- Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- City & County of Denver v. District Court Ex Rel. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc. v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Bell v. WhiteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.