Case Name: Cascade Automatic Sprinkler Corporation, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1936-10-02
Citations: 248 A.D. 922
Docket Number: Claim No. 22060
Parties: Cascade Automatic Sprinkler Corporation, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 922–922

Head Matter:
Cascade Automatic Sprinkler Corporation, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.
(Claim No. 22060.)

Opinion:
Motion for reargument granted and on reargument the decision of March 21, 1936 (247 App. Div. 226), and the former decision of June 25, 1936 (ante, p. 795), rendered on former motion for reargument, together with the respective orders entered thereon, are amended to read as follows: Judgment and decision of the Court of Claims modified so as to declare chapter 694 of the Laws of 1931 constitutional, and as modified judgment affirmed, with costs. The court reverses the following findings of fact: " Third," " Fourth," " Fifth " and " Seventh " contained in the State's requests to find; " Thirteenth," " Seventeenth " and " Eighteenth " contained in the decision; and all findings of fact contained in any conclusion of law. The court makes the following - findings of fact: " Fourth," " Eighth," " Ninth," " Tenth," " Eleventh," " Twelfth " and " Thirteenth " contained in the claimant's requests to find; also that the claimant has been paid the sum of $8,764.75 by the State for its work and materials furnished pursuant to said contract. The court disapproves the following conclusions of law: " Second " and " Fourth " contained in the decision. The court finds as a conclusion of law the first proposed conclusion of law contained in claimant's requests to find. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant judgment for claimant on the authority of Afgo Engineering Corp. v. State of New York (244 App. Div. 395; affd., 268 N. Y. 716), but concurs so far as this court holds the Enabling Act constitutional, and that the claim originally had merit.