Case ID: ny_233/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The City of New York, Respondent, v. Bridge Operating Company, Appellant.
    
      Contract — municipal corporations— New York city — railroads — construction of contract' between municipality and railroad company as to the repair of railroad track on bridge owned by municipality.
    
    
      City of New York v. Bridge Operating Co., 197 App. Div. 948, affirmed.
    
      (Argued May 4, 1922;
    decided May 31, 1922.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 8, 1921, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by, the court. The action was brought to recover moneys expended by plaintiff for repairs to surface railroad tracks belonging to plaintiff on the Williamsburg bridge. The question was whether, under an agreement between the parties, defendant was liable to reimburse plaintiff for the expense incurred in making such repairs. The contract provided: “ W The ‘ Bridge Company ’ agrees to keep and maintain the surface tracks and the electrical equipment thereof in good order and repair, and in such manner as the ' Commissioner ’ may approve or direct during the term of this contract.” Defendant contended that the original contract terminated on August 31, 1915, pursuant to the written notice of the bridge commissioner, and was never extended and that' the temporary permits issued to the separate companies for operation after August 31, 1915, constituted separate and distinct contracts for each company, and the permits issued to the Bridge Operating Company imposed no obligation upon it to maintain tracks upon which it did not operate.
    
      Henry J. Smith and James L. Quackenbush for appellant.
    
      John P. O’Brien, Corporation Counsel (John F. O’Brien, Willard S. Allen and Josiah A. Stover of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.