From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jewish Board of Guardians v. Grumman Allied Industries

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1984
465 N.E.2d 42 (N.Y. 1984)

Opinion

Argued March 21, 1984

Decided May 1, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Orest V. Maresca, J.

Lawrence S. Greengrass and Howard D. Avrutine for appellant.

Curtiss B. Kline for Grumman Allied Industries Incorporated, respondent.

William H. Morris and Gerald P. McMorrow for Thomas J. Biuso, respondent.



Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division ( 96 A.D.2d 465), to which we add that, as to the claim against defendant Biuso, plaintiff's expert's testimony established no more than that the way the expert would have handled the job would meet the standards of the architectural profession, not that Biuso did not meet such standards. Indeed, as to application of the finished roof to the modular units at the job site rather than at the factory, the expert conceded that there were many precedents for doing it that way.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE.


Summaries of

Jewish Board of Guardians v. Grumman Allied Industries

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 1, 1984
465 N.E.2d 42 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

Jewish Board of Guardians v. Grumman Allied Industries

Case Details

Full title:JEWISH BOARD OF GUARDIANS, Appellant, v. GRUMMAN ALLIED INDUSTRIES…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 1, 1984

Citations

465 N.E.2d 42 (N.Y. 1984)
465 N.E.2d 42
476 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

Van Dyke v. Alderman

s responsible for designing the subject opening in the guardrail, or, at a minimum, was aware of its…

Thomas J. McAdam Liquors v. Senior Living Options

The terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous. While Meltzer/Mandl contracted to prepare design…