Case ID: ny_221/html/0722-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. G. Vogel Company, Appellant, v. George Backer Construction Company, Respondent.
    (Argued October 26, 1917;
    decided November 13, 1917.)
    
      Vogel Co. v. Backer Construction Co., 166 App. Div. 921, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 4, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff for but part of the relief demanded; entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The complaint set forth that a written agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendant, whereby plaintiff agreed to and did install an automatic sprinkler system on behalf of defendant in its premises; that the defendant agreed to pay the sum of $6,000 therefor, and that no part of said sum had been paid, except $2,000, leaving a balance due and owing of $4,000. The amended answer denied substantially all of the material allegations of the complaint, and interposed two counterclaims. The first counterclaim alleged that damage was done by plaintiff to the floors and ceilings of defendant’s building; that plastering, painting and mason work were injured, and rubbish and dirt left behind by plaintiff; that the sum of $1,700 was expended by defendant for making repairs to the building and removing rubbish and dirt. The second counterclaim alleged that plaintiff did not commence work upon the installation of the sprinkler system in the building as soon as it was in shape to receive the same, but on the contrary delayed two months; that by reason of the delay of two months defendant was forced to expend the sum of $1,320 as salary for a general superintendent, a superintendent and watchman. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the sum of $3,000, without costs, the defendant’s first counterclaim being upheld to the extent of the sum of $800, and the second counterclaim to the extent of the sum of $200. '
    
      David Bernstein and I. Maurice Wormser for appellant.
    
      Samuel Levy and Reuben Rodecker for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Crane, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.