Depot Construction Corp. v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Joseph Bucheck Const. Corp. v. We Music (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- Weigand v. University Hospital of New York University Medical Center (New York Supreme Court 1997)
- A.C. Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Building Contractors Ass'n v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- CCG Associates I v. Riverside Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Sinram-Marnis Oil Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- New York Times Co. v. Glynn-Palmer Associates, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1988)
- Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (N.Y. 1985)
- Louver v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Blitman Construction Corp. v. Kent Village Housing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Stoner Broadcasting of New York, Inc. v. K. L. & Spitler, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Marvec-All State, Inc. v. Purcell (New York Supreme Court 1981)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The orders of the Appellate Division should bé affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Samuel J. Silver-man in that court.
We add only two comments. First, as recited in section 100-a of the General Municipal Law, the provisions of sections 101 and 103 of that law (prescribing practice with reference to the expenditure of municipal funds for public projects) are designed "to assure the prudent and economical use of public moneys for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the state and to facilitate the acquisition of facilities and commodities of maximum quality at the lowest possible cost”. They do not undertake to define the rights and liabilities between the municipality and other participants in the public project. They are for the protection of taxpayers, not the benefit of contractors.
Second, even if it be assumed that the complaint and supporting documents are sufficient to sustain appellants’ contention that the co-operatives were agents of the City of New York in the development of these meat distribution centers, we agree with the Appellate Division that in each of these cases the contract between the co-operative and the contractor imposed liability only on the co-operative.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.
In each case: Order affirmed, with costs in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.