Forest Elec. Corp. v. State, 43376

Citation30 A.D.2d 905,292 N.Y.S.2d 589
Decision Date23 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 43376,43376
PartiesFOREST ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Max E. Greenberg, New York City, for respondent.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., John B. Poersch, Schenectady, for appellant.

Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, AULISI and STALEY, JJ.

GIBSON, Presiding Justice.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for breaches by the State of its contract with claimant for the performance by claimant of electrical work in connection with the construction of a building at Bronx State Hospital; the breaches found being (1) the State's failure to co-ordinate the performance, and enforce the timely progress of the work of the various contractors, in particular that of the contractor for general construction, and (2) the State's failure to require the general construction contractor to comply with the contract requirements to provide elevators and hoists for claimant's workmen and materials; the State's breach in each case resulting in extraordinary delay causative of hindrance, loss and damage to claimant in the performance of its work. The State does not dispute the amount of either award, resting its appeal on its denial of actionable responsibility for any of the delays proven.

We first consider the cause of action predicated on delay.

In accordance with section 135 of the General Finance Law, the State made separate contracts with claimant and six other contractors for the separate and different types of work required, these latter being for general construction, heating, sanitary work, refrigeration, elevator work and food service equipment. The contract date was May 12, 1959 and the completion date was December 31, 1961 for all of the contracts, but the work was not accepted until December 20, 1963. Claimant had performed 90% Of its work by June 18, 1962. The State would attribute the delay in large part to various industrial strikes in 1960 and 1961 but the trial court found strikes responsible for no more than 25% Of the delay and consequent damage and in its award gave effect to that finding.

The State concedes that, under the terms of the contract and the specifications, there existed an obligation requiring the State to co-ordinate the work; that there was also created an obligation on the part of the separate contractors to co-ordinate and connect their work; and that the State's responsibility was to attempt to keep the work of all the contractors progressing, so that no contractor would be damaged as a result of delays caused by another. Actionable delay must be more than 'ordinary' delay, under section 90 of the State Architect's Standard Mechanical Specification of November 1, 1955, made part of the contract documents, providing: '90. No charges or claim for damages shall be made by the Contractor for any ordinary delays or hindrances, from any cause whatsoever, during the progress of any portion of the work embraced in this contract. Such delays or hindrances shall be compensated for by an extension of time as above provided.'

Concededly, claimant frequently complained to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Moore Const. Co., Inc. v. Clarksville Dept. of Electricity
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1985
    ...190 (Ct.Cl.1954); Siefford v. Housing Authority of Humboldt, 192 Neb. 643, 223 N.W.2d 816, 820 (1974); Forest Electric Corp. v. State, 30 A.D.2d 905, 292 N.Y.S.2d 589, 590 (1968); and Kenworthy v. State of California, 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 383, 46 Cal.Rptr. 396, 400 (1965). This is such a cas......
  • Edwin J. Dobson, Jr., Inc. v. Rutgers, State University
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • January 12, 1978
    ...were not delivered on time, see Forest Elec. Corp. v. State, 52 Misc.2d 215, 275 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Ct.Cl.1966), aff'd 30 A.D.2d 905, 292 N.Y.S.2d 589 (App.Div.1968), and hence was outside the scope of G4-D.6. State urged that the provision for delegation to Briscoe of responsibility for coordin......
  • Norelli & Oliver Const. Co. v. State, 43893
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 17, 1968
    ...of the work through the Winter months. Claimant argues for affirmance upon the authority of our decision in Forest Elec. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 905, 292 N.Y.S.2d 589. The arguments of both parties proceed on the premise that the standard contract form provisions exempting the......
  • Weber Const. Co. v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 27, 1971
    ...State due to its failure to require the railroad to coordinate its portion of the work with claimant's. (See Forest Elec. Corp. v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 905, 292 N.Y.S.2d 589.) ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT