CONNORS-HAAS, INC. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 44 N.Y.2d 860 (1978)

407 N.Y.S.2d 474, 378 N.E.2d 1043

CONNORS-HAAS, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued April 24, 1978
Decided May 31, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, ROBERT E. WHITE, J.

Page 861

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 862

Percival D. Oviatt, Jr., for appellants.

Louis N. Kash, Corporation Counsel (Joseph A. Regan of counsel), for respondents.

MEMORANDUM.

Order reversed, without costs, and order of Supreme Court granting plaintiff summary judgment reinstated. Plaintiff contractor and defendant city were entitled, unquestionably, to engage the Dean Company as a common agent (see Restatement, Agency 2d, § 392; 2 N.Y. Jur, Agency, § 205). Indeed, according to the stipulation of agreed facts, the original proposal by Dean to plaintiff contemplated a common agency: Dean, with its own funds, was to purchase bonds on behalf of plaintiff and, in exchange for the cash retained by the city under the construction contract, deposit the bonds with the city (see, generally, General Municipal Law, § 106). Also according to the stipulation of agreed facts, however, the city subsequently changed the arrangement by designating Dean to hold, as well as purchase, the bonds. Having thereby extended the agency of Dean beyond the original arrangement, thus enabling Dean to convert the cash retainage to its own use, the city must bear the loss.

In an appropriate case it would be desirable, arguably, as commentators have suggested, to distribute equitably between principals the loss brought about by a common agent’s embezzlement (see Restatement, Agency 2d, § 313, Caveat, Comment on Caveat; Seavey, Embezzlement by Agent of two Principals: Contribution? 64 Harv L Rev 431, 433-436). But then the loss must arise from the agreed common agency, a

Page 863

conclusion the present stipulation of agreed facts does not permit.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CORDAS v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941)

27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…

1 week ago

WOOD v. DUFF-GORDON, Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88 (1917)

222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…

3 weeks ago

RAHABI v. MORRISON, 81 A.D.2d 434

81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…

3 weeks ago

MATTER OF SCHLINGER, 48 Misc.2d 345 (1965)

48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…

3 weeks ago

BARTOLONE v. JECKOVICH, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 (1984).

103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…

3 weeks ago

Matter of C.C. v D.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 (Sept. 18, 2025)

Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…

2 months ago