Schenectady Steel Co., Inc. v. Bruno Trimpoli General Const. Co., Inc.
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
350 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1974)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Bruno Trimpoli General Construction Co., Inc. (Construction Co.) (defendant) agreed on May 8, 1968 to construct a bridge for the State of New York by December 31, 1969. Construction Co. then contracted with Schenectady Steel Co., Inc. (Steel Co.) (plaintiff) to provide and erect the steel for the bridge. The parties’ contract stated that “time is of the essence” and that Steel Co. would complete the work in 1968. Because of various difficulties of which Construction Co. was aware, Steel Co. was unable to complete the work by the end of 1968. In January and February 1969, Construction Co. sent two letters to Steel Co. demanding that it provide a delivery schedule or risk Construction Co. going with an alternative supplier and charging Steel Co. for any additional cost. Steel Co. pledged to work quickly but did not provide a delivery schedule. On March 1, 1969, the president of Construction Co. visited Steel Co.’s facility and was disappointed with the lack of progress. On March 5, Construction Co. cancelled the contract. Steel Co. sued to recover the value of the work it performed; Construction Co. countersued for damages. After a non-jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Construction Co., applying the Uniform Commercial Code. Steel Co. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reynolds, J.)
Concurrence (Greenblott, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Cooke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
