Case Name: BLOCK v. GALITZKA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-07-24
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 173
Docket Number: 
Parties: BLOCK v. GALITZKA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 173–174

Head Matter:
(114 App. Div. 799)
BLOCK v. GALITZKA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deparment.
July 24, 1906.)
Fbauds, Statute of—Original Undertaking.
Testimony of plaintiff, a subcontractor under one who had contracted to build for defendant, that just after commencing the work he told defendant that he did not feel safe in regard to his payments, and did not care to go on with the work without an understanding that defendant would guaranty his payment, and defendant replied, “All right; if that is the case, I will see that you are paid”; that thereafter, during the progress of the work, plaintiff spoke to defendant several times with reference to payment for his work, and defendant said, “Don’t fear; I will take care of you,” and “I will see that you get it,” establishes. a valid and enforceable contract.
Gaynor, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.
Action by Jacob M. Block against Herman Galitzka. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, after a trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.
Alvin C.. Cass, for appellant.
William J. McArthur, for respondent.

Opinion:
RICH, J.
No opinion was written by the trial justice, and the record does not disclose the ground of his decision. The defendant entered into a contract with one or more contractors for the erection of one or more buildings, among whom was one Assip, who sublet certain of the steelwork to one Hoff, the plaintiff's assignor. While the work was in progress—about July 1, 1903—before, as Hoff says, "hardly any" of the work had been done or materials furnished, Hoff had a conversation with defendant, at the building upon which he was working, in which he told the defendant that he did not feel safe in regard to his payments, and did not care to go on with the work without an understanding that he (defendant) would guaranty his payment, to which the defendant replied, "All right, Mr. Hoff; if that is the case, I will see that you are paid." Between that time and the completion of the work, on September 17th, Hoff spoke to the defendant several times with reference to payment for his work, and was told, "Don't fear, Mr. Hoff; I will take care of you," and that "he will see that I get it." This agreement and conversation, testified to by Hoff, were not denied or in any manner controverted by the defendant, who was sworn as a witness in his own behalf upon the trial. The plaintiff completed his work on the faith of this agreement. He had no communication with Assip, did no work for him, and furnished him no materials after the conversation with defendant about July 1st. There was a balance due and unpaid Hoff upon his contract of $271.05. which he subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, who brought this action to recover the same as on an original undertaking. This evidence, wholly uncontradicted, from a witness in no wise impeached, the trial court was not at liberty to disregard (Littlefield v. Lawrence, 83 App. Div. 327, 82 N. Y. Supp. 25), and it established a valid and enforceable contract. Mannetti v. Doege, 48 App. Div. 567, 62 N. Y. Supp. 918, and authorities therein cited; Breen v. Isaacs (Sup.) 96 N. Y. Supp. 741.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
HIRSCHBERG, P; J., and HOOKER and MILDER, JJ., concur.