Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. State
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Port Chester Electrical Construction Corp. v. HBE Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- Thalle Construction Co., Inc. v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Inc. (2d Cir. 1994)
- Thalle Construction Co. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. (2d Cir. 1994)
- Arch Insurance v. Precision Stone, Inc. (2d Cir. 2009)
- United States Ex Rel. Maris Equipment Co. v. Morganti, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2001)
- Franklin Pavkov Construction Co. v. Ultra Roof, Inc. (District Court, N.D. New York 1999)
- United States ex rel. Evergreen Pipeline Construction Co. v. Merritt Meridian Construction Corp. (2d Cir. 1996)
- S. Leo Harmonay, Inc. v. Binks Manufacturing Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Manshul Construction Corp. v. Dormitory Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Zepsa Indus., Inc. v. 401 W. Prop. Owners, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- TY ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. DELMONTE, RAYMOND (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Pesca v. Barbera Homes, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 2012)
- CRANE-HOGAN STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, INC v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Crane-Hogan Structural System, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Gartech Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Coastal Electric Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Miranco Contracting, Inc. v. Perel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Abax, Inc. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Clifford R. Gray, Inc. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Mid-State Precast Systems, Inc. v. Corbetta Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- In re the Arbitration between Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority & Computer Sciences Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Safway Steel Products v. Craft Architectural Metals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- C.R. Drywall, Inc. v. Wade Lupe Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc. v. Village Dock, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
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 order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
A dispute arose between D. Lambert Railing Co. (Lambert), the subcontractor responsible for the guide rail work of the project to improve the condition of the Cross Westchester Parkway, and the State’s engineer-in-chief with respect to how the preparatory work required to order the necessary materials was to be conducted and the nature of the guide rail work itself. After completion of this work, claimant, the general contractor, instituted this action pursuant to an agreement with Lambert on the latter’s behalf alleging that the State had breached the contract.
As to the issue of liability, the Court of Claims found that the State had interfered in the performance of the guide rail work, thereby causing severe disruption in Lambert’s work schedule and resulting in increased costs. These findings, affirmed by the Appellate Division and having support in the record, are beyond our review. (CPLR 5501, subd [b]; e.g., Matter of Rothko, 43 NY2d 305, 318.)
In addition, on the record before us, we agree with the measure of damages as calculated by the Appellate Division. Claimant, seeking the reasonable value of the work actually performed by its subcontractor Lambert, was entitled to recover damages measured on a quantum meruit basis: to wit, actual job cost plus allowance for Lambert’s overhead and profit minus the amounts thus far paid for the work performed by Lambert. (See D’Angelo v State of New York, 41 AD2d 77, 80, after remand for new trial 46 AD2d 983, affd 39 NY2d 781.) We would note that the State had its opportunity before the Court of Claims to submit proof of factual matters which might go to reduce the amount of damages.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.