Seaman v. City of New York

Headnote

Seaman v. City of New York, 172 App. Div. 740 , affirmed.

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 27, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict. This action was brought to recover under two separate causes of action. The first cause of action alleged the employment in March, 1905, of the plaintiff by the defendant, acting by and through the president of the borough of Queens, to prepare and furnish to the defendant all of the plans and specifications, etc., for the erection and full completion, together with the supervision of a combination borough hall and county court house building for the borough of Queens, said services to be paid for by the defendant at the usual and customary rates of commissions allowed architects; that plaintiff entered upon the performance of this contract and duly prepared and completed all the preliminary studies and specifications and furnished the same to .the defendant, who duly approved and accepted the same, and thereafter the plaintiff continuing his performance prepared and completed the necessary plans and specifications sufficiently complete to enable prospective bidders and contractors to make reliable estimates upon which to make their bids, and that said plans were duly approved, accepted and retained by the defendant. For a second cause of action plaintiff alleged damages for the refusal of the defendant to permit him to complete the detailed drawings for said building and supervise its construction. The defendant

in its answer pleaded a general denial to both causes of action and in addition set up the following separate defenses to each cause of action: First, that the plaintiff had been fully paid by the defendant each and every sum due; second, that at the time plaintiff claimed to have been employed pursuant to the contract specified in the complaint he was in the employ of the defendant as a draftsman and that he actually received his salary as such draftsman during all the period, which said salary was in full compensation for all services performed for the defendant, also that plaintiff could not hold two positions; third, that there was no appropriation and the contract as alleged was ultra vires; fourth, that the art commission had rejected the plans.