101 N.Y.S. 351 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1906
The action is to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon certain funds in possession of the city of New York applicable to the payment of repairs to a public school. The city contracted with defendant Theriault to make the repairs for $1,895. Theriault subcontracted with the plaintiffs to do a portion of the work for $1,240. The plaintiffs performed all the work required by their subcontract. Theriault did not perform all the work required by his contract, but abandoned the same. The city then took charge of the work and caused it to be completed by another contractor. The city paid Theriault on account $595, and subsequently paid the other contractor $528 for completing the work, thus leaving $772 unpaid on the Theriault contract. Theriault paid the plaintiffs $500 on account of the work done under the subcontract, and there remains due the plaintiffs for work performed under such subcontract the sum of $740. The city of New York interposes many objections to the maintenance of this action. First, it is urged that the action should have been brought against the board of education under the authority of Gunnison v. Board of Education, 176 N. Y. 111. I am inclined to think that "the city cannot raise that objection in view of the pleadings. The complaint alleges a contract between Theriault and the city of New York, and the answer admits such a contract, which would seem to preclude the'city from now claiming that the contract is with the board of education. Aside, however, from this answer to the first objection, I believe that the action is well brought against the city under the authority of Bell v. Mayor, 105 N. Y. 139. Second, it is claimed
Judgment accordingly.