Case Name: Francis Stuart Williamson, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-04-23
Citations: 223 N.Y. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis Stuart Williamson, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 223
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Francis Stuart Williamson, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Williamson v. City of New York, 171. App. Div. 439, affirmed.
(Argued March 28, 1918;
decided April 23, 1918.)
Appeal from a judgment, entered March 16, 1916, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff on the third cause of action set forth in the complaint entered upon a verdict and directed a dismissal of the complaint as to said cause of action, which presented a claim by the plaintiff for damages by reason of an alleged breach of contract of employment of plaintiff by the city of New York to prepare plans and supervise the construction work for a proposed extension of Riverside Drive from One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street to the proposed Hendrick Hudson ' memorial bridge. The complaint alleged that the defendant refused to continue with the completion of said proposed work and refused to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the supervision thereof. The Appellate Division held the action to be premature; that “ to hold that this contract bound the city to proceed with the improvement in accordance with the plans and specifications, if any, regardless of the cost and other considerations, would be an unreasonable construction and could in no event obtain unless the borough president possessed full authority to contract not merely for the services of the plaintiff, but for the improvement, which does not appear. The rights of the plaintiff are fully protected by the construction of this contract which gives-him the right to the two per cent which he has received upon the approval of the plans and specifications, but which gives the city discretion to proceed with or abandon the improvement, and gives plaintiff the right to earn the second installment by supervising the work, if and when the city proceeds therewith.”
Francis Gilbert, Alfred W. Kiddle, A. S. Gilbert and Henry T. Hornidge for appellant.
William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley and John F. O’Brien of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Ctjddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.