Legal Opinion
Syracuse Supply Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 16, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: We reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from and grant plaintiff supplier’s cross motion for summary judgment on the cause of action asserted against the surety, Seaboard Surety Company (Seaboard). Liability on a payment bond required pursuant to State Finance Law § 137 was not intended to be contingent upon the existence of a lienable fund (Chittenden Lbr. Co. v Silberblatt & Lasker, 288 NY 396, 404). "The 'benefits’ which the Legislature, by the enactment of section 137, intended…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chittenden Lumber Co. v. Silberblatt & Lasker, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Tri-City Electric Co. v. PeopleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Tri-City Electric Co. v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co. v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of NewarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development AgencyNew York Supreme Court · 1993
- Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Windsor Metal Fabrications, Ltd. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998