Schenectady Steel Co. v. Bruno Trimpoli General Construction Co.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed on the record before us.
We agree with the majority below that once the “ time of the essence ” provision in the contract was waived by the general *941contractor, performance by the steel supplier within a reasonable time was all that was required. We would not, however, concur with the majority’s reasoning insofar as it is indicated that the “ time of the essence ” element was reimposed; but upon any view of the evidence the lesser standard of reasonable time was not even complied with and we thus find no cause for disturbing the…
2Cited by61 opinions
- Norcon Power Partners, L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Milau Associates, Inc. v. North Avenue Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Gary Joseph Grappo v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A. And Gianfranco BianchiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Horn Waterproofing Corp. v. Bushwick Iron & Steel Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Gilbert Central Corp. v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.