Trimpoli v. State

Decision Date13 October 1959
Docket NumberNo. 33721,33721
Citation21 Misc.2d 67,197 N.Y.S.2d 97
PartiesBruno TRIMPOLI, Claimant, v. STATE of New York. Claim
CourtNew York Court of Claims

DeGraff, Foy, Conway & Holt-Harris, Albany, William F. Conway, Albany, of counsel, for claimant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Foster, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for the State.

BERNARD RYAN, Presiding Judge.

Claimant sued the State of New York for breach of a contract with the Department of Public Works for the grading, landscaping and other improvements at the Campus site, Albany, New York. The breaches charged consisted of (a) eliminating arbitrarily certain specified items of the work and (b) directing the claimant over his protest to fill in certain low areas in a manner which blocked drainage with a resulting flooding of the site and consequent impediment to claimant's operations.

The claim came on for trial at Albany on May 7 and 8, 1958. At the conclusion of the trial the Court directed that briefs and requests to find should be filed by the claimant's attorney by June 23 and by the Attorney General by July 14. This was done in the expectation that the stenographer's transcript of the testimony, which was ordered by the claimant, would be available on or before June 9. Actually the transcript was filed on August 1, 1958. Under date of August 7th the claimant's attorney asked for an extension of time. The Court granted this request and extended the time to September 20 and later, upon a second written request, to November 15. Subsequently, at the Court's direction, reminders to claimant's counsel were telephoned by an aide but no briefs or requests were submitted by him. Under date of August 20, 1958 the Attorney General requested an extension of time to 20 days beyond the receipt by him of the claimant's brief. This request was granted. Subsequently, however, and on or about April 1, 1959 the Trial Deputy was orally urged by the Court to submit his brief and requests without awaiting the service of his opponent's documents. Under date of June 19, 1959 the Court rendered its decision upon findings of fact and conclusions of law and therein recited that no briefs or requests to find had been filed by either party to the litigation which was the fact.

The Court found: 1. That the elimination of the items by the State Architect was not capricious; and 2. That claimant knew or should have known from the plans and specifications, and from his inspection of the site before he made his bid, that part of the 18-inch sanitary sewer line must be placed in a low swampy area. The Court further found that claimant has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he incurred any expense in removing ponded water from the site over and above that for which he had been paid. Upon these findings, and other essential recitals, the Court dismissed the claim except for an award of interest in the amount of $358.84 computed upon a sum admittedly due claimant, which sum had been paid to him pursuant to an earlier judgment of the Court entered upon an order of severance. Judgment upon the decision was entered June 24, 1959. Claimant filed notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department on July 10, 1959 and the Attorney General served notice of cross-appeal on July 17, 1959.

Claimant now makes application by order to show cause for an order vacating and setting aside the judgment heretofore entered herein and opening the decision of the Court herein for further consideration by reason of error of fact external to the record and for such other reasons as to the Court may seem proper and for other further and different relief as may be appropriate.

Previous to this application ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Arlen of Nanuet, Inc. v. State
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • February 21, 1967
    ...binding upon the Court of Claims. Mark v. State of New York, 21 Misc.2d 63, 197 N.Y.S.2d 92 (Ct. of Claims 1959); Trimpoli v. State of New York, 21 Misc.2d 67, 197 N.Y.S.2d 97 (Ct. of Claims, 1959). The determinative date has been deemed to be the date on which the decision is filed. Bernst......

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