Case ID: ny_221/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Austin D. Lord et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Lord & Hewlett, Appellants, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
    (Argued October 8, 1917;
    decided October 23, 1917.)
    
      Lord v. City of New York, 171 App. Div. 140, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment entered March 23, 1916, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court upon the first cause of action set forth in their complaint and dismissing the complaint as to it. Also appeal, by permission, from such judgment in so far as it affirms the judgment of the Trial Term dismissing the second cause of action set forth in the complaint. The action was to recover upon a contract for services in preparing plans and specifications for a court house and municipal building in the borough of Brooklyn. The defendant contended that the estimated cost based on the plans and specifications prepared, instead of being well within the total appropriation, exceeded it by $2,800,000 and that by reason thereof the plaintiffs failed to bring themselves within the terms of their employment and could not recover.
    
      Jeremiah T. Mahoney, Robert F. Wagner and Vincent L. Leibell for appellants.
    
      Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley and E. Crosby Kindleberger of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.