General Crushed Stone Co. v. State
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rachman Bag Company, a Partnership Composed of Plains Bag and Bagging Co., Inc., and Rachman Bag Co., Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2d Cir. 1995)
- Westrm-West Risk Markets, Ltd. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- In re Regional Building Systems, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland 2001)
- Banque Franco-Hellenic De Commerce International Et Maritime, S.A. v. Christophides (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (District Court, E.D. New York 1993)
- Ingalls Iron Works Company v. Fehlhaber Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- Mohasco Industries, Inc. v. Giffen Industries, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- Chemical Bank v. Layne (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
- U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- City of New York v. Corwen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- B. G. Equipment Co. v. American Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In each action: Order reversed and the judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division in a memorandum. The evidence supported the findings of the trial court, and the views of the dissenting Justices in the Appellate Division, that plaintiff and Central New York Contracting Co. engaged in a deliberate scheme to violate the trust provisions of the Lien Law. The ultimate purpose of the scheme was to foist any eventual deficit in payments to suppliers or laborers on sureties on payment bonds. On this view it is immaterial that there was no intention to defraud any particular surety or that, because of the effectiveness of the conspiracy to pool receipts from different projects, moneys could not be specifically allocated to particular jobs. Nor is any claim of carelessness by the surety available as a defense to the affirmative defense alleging fraud (Albany City Sav. Inst. v. Burdick, 87 N. Y. 39, 46-49; 24 N. Y. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 231).
■Concur: Chief Judge Ftjld and Judges Vah Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergah, Keat-iug and Breitel.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.