Case Name: The City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Respondent and Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-04-18
Citations: 233 N.Y. 574
Docket Number: 
Parties: The City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Respondent and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 233
Pages: 574–574

Head Matter:
The City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, v. Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Company, Respondent and Appellant.
New York city —forfeiture — accounting ■—■ action to procure forfeiture of contract and accounting.
City of New York v. Consolidated Telegraph & Electrical Subway Co., 196 App. Div. 689, affirmed.
(Argued March 14, 1922;
decided April 18, 1922.)
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 22, 1921, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of referees. The action was brought to procure a forfeiture of the rights of the defendant under contracts made with it in behalf of the plaintiff, and for an accounting as to moneys alleged to be due and owing to the plaintiff under contracts by which the defendant was to construct subways for electric lines and to lease the space therein and to be entitled to retain the profits on the capital invested to the extent of ten per cent per annum, but was required to .account to the plaintiff for any surplus profits over such ten per «cent after deducting from such surplus profits for any year any deficit with respect to the ten per-cent «of profits which it was entitled to deduct for previous years.
John P. O’Brien, Corporation Counsel {John F. O’Brien and Willard S. Allen of counsel), for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.
William N. Cohen, Henry J. Hemmens and Thomas H. Beardsley fór defendant, respondent and appellant.
Edward L. Blackman and Charles T. Russell for Empire City Subway Company, amicus curioe.

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