From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CRAG ERECTORS, INC. v. P.P.G. INDUSTRIES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 16, 1976
51 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

January 16, 1976

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On this motion for summary judgment by defendants P P G Industries, Inc. (PPG) and Wilmorite, Inc., we find that, at this early state of the litigation at least, a question of fact exists as to whether PPG has waived or should be estopped from raising its contract defenses against plaintiff Crag Industries, Inc. (see Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N.Y. 380, 387; La Rose v Backer, 11 A.D.2d 314, 319-320, amd 11 A.D.2d 969, affd 11 N.Y.2d 760). Likewise, as to plaintiff's claim against defendant Wilmorite, Inc., a question of fact exists with regard to the existence of a quasi contract (see Bradkin v Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192, 196-197). Moreover, plaintiff argues that by its general contract with Crittenden Boulevard Housing Company, defendant Wilmorite assumed affirmative duties of supervision that all subcontracts necessary to the completion of the project would be properly performed; that as a subsubcontractor plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable party who would act in reliance upon the proper exercise of this affirmative duty of supervision; and that plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove its action in tort against Wilmorite for damages resulting from the alleged violation of this affirmative duty. We conclude that this is a valid extension of the principles enunciated in the breach of sales warranty cases (see, e.g., Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 395, 402; Velez v Crane Clark LBR. Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 117, 124-125; Codling v Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 342; Goldberg v Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 432, 436), and that plaintiff may proceed on this theory as well. We find no abuse of discretion in Special Term's grant of further disclosure to plaintiff. However, in the interests of justice and expedition of this lawsuit we find that Wilmorite, Inc., should be granted permission, if it wishes within 10 days of the entry of this order, to amend its answer to the cross claim of PPG to plead that by release made to Wilmorite, Inc., PPG is barred from asserting its cross claim (CPLR 3018, subd [b]; 3019, subd [d]; 3025, subd [b]), but PPG should also be granted 20 days thereafter in which to serve its reply thereto.


Summaries of

CRAG ERECTORS, INC. v. P.P.G. INDUSTRIES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 16, 1976
51 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

CRAG ERECTORS, INC. v. P.P.G. INDUSTRIES

Case Details

Full title:CRAG ERECTORS, INC., Respondent, v. P.P.G. INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 16, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)