L&L Painting Co., Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of New York, 926 N.E.2d 1228 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
L&L Painting Co., Inc. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of New York, 926 N.E.2d 1228 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lakhi General Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority (nyappdiv, 2017-02-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lakhi General Contractor, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 193 AD2d 640, 641 [1993]; Savin Bros. v State of New York, 62 AD2d 511, 516 [1978], affd 47 NY2d 934 [1979]; see also L&L Painting Co., Inc. v Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y., 14 NY3d 827 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
L&L Painting Co., Inc., Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Contract Dispute Resolution Board of the City of New York Et Al., Respondents
140 SSM 13.
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 29, 2010.
926 N.E.2d 1228
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Georgoulis & Associates PLLC, New York City (Michael McDermott of counsel), for appellants., Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Alan G. Krams of counsel), for respondents.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The City of New York Contract Dispute Resolution Board rationally determined that a discrepancy between a diagram and notes on the contract drawing that is the subject of this dispute created an ambiguity in the contract terms, which petitioner L&L Painting Co., Inc. failed to clarify prior to bidding as the contract required. Therefore, the Board rationally disapproved the claim for additional compensation.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.