Ardsley Const. Co., Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
| Decision Date | 15 October 1981 |
| Citation | 444 N.Y.S.2d 907,54 N.Y.2d 876 |
| Parties | , 429 N.E.2d 414 ARDSLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Appellants, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
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 viaduct 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 against the Port Authority for additional costs incurred as a result of the bridge being "out of square", asserting essentially that the Port Authority plans incorrectly showed the bridge girders to which the newly manufactured replacement expansion dams were to be continuously welded to be straight, even and parallel with each other, which they were not, and that this circumstance resulted in cost overruns.
Pursuant to appellants' contract with the Port Authority the claims were submitted to the Port Authority's engineer for determination. In a written opinion the Port Authority's engineer disallowed the claims after concluding that field conditions were what reasonably could be anticipated and that no contractor with any engineering sophistication could have expected to find an absolutely square condition.
Appellants then instituted the present action for damages. The claims asserted by appellants in this litigation fall within the broad scope of the contract provision: "The Engineer shall determine the amount, quality, acceptability and fitness of all parts of the materials and Work, shall interpret the Contract Drawings, Specifications, and any Extra Orders, and shall decide all other questions in connection with the Contract." Applying then the standard of Tufano Contr. Corp. v. Port of N. Y. Auth., 18 A.D.2d 1001, 238 N.Y.S.2d 607, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 848, 242 N.Y.S.2d 489, 192 N.E.2d 270--that the decision of the engineer is conclusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of New York
...Id. at 500, 148 N.E. 655. Since these decisions interpreting Article XXIV pre-date Ardsley Construction Co., Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 54 N.Y.2d 876, 444 N.Y.S.2d 907, 429 N.E.2d 414, and Maross Construction Inc. v. Central New York Regional Transportation Authority......
-
City and County of Denver v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver
...Contracting Co. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166, 544 N.Y.S.2d 580, 542 N.E.2d 1097 (1989); Ardsley Constr. Co. v. Port Auth., 54 N.Y.2d 876, 444 N.Y.S.2d 907, 429 N.E.2d 414 (1981); Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port Auth., 13 N.Y.2d 848, 242 N.Y.S.2d 489, 192 N.E.2d 270 (1963); Citibank v......
-
Bell v. White
...of a minority discount under these circumstances constitutes "palpable error" ( Ardsley Constr. Co. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 54 N.Y.2d 876, 877, 444 N.Y.S.2d 907, 429 N.E.2d 414 [1981]; see Kroboth v. Brent, 262 A.D.2d 837, 838, 692 N.Y.S.2d 217 [1999], lv. dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 838, 702......
-
Am. Architectural Inc. v. Marino
...economic oppression” ( id. at 55, 603 N.Y.S.2d 404, 623 N.E.2d 531). See generally, Ardsley Construc. Co., Inc. v. Port Authority of New York, 54 N.Y.2d 876, 444 N.Y.S.2d 907, 429 N.E.2d 414 [1981], in which the Court of Appeals declined to determine whether judicial review of a decision re......