Allhusen v. Caristo Construction
|Allhusen v. Caristo Construction|
|Court||New York Court of Appeals of New York|
|Citation||103 N.E.2d 891|
|Date decided||January 24, 1952|
Caristo Construction Corporation ("Caristo"), a general contractor, entered into a sub-contract with Kroo Painting ("Kroo"). Caristo hired Kroo for a painting job in New York City public schools. Their contract prohibited Kroo from assigning any part of the contract to another party unless Caristo provided express written consent.
Nevertheless, Kroo assigned its sub-contract to Marine Midland First Company of New York which in turn assigns its sub-contract to Mr. Allhusen ("Allhusen").
--Kroo completed the painting. However, Caristo refused to pay Allhusen $11,650 (about $132,000 in 2023).
Allhusen sued Caristo for the money due to Kroo's performance of painting.Allhusen lost in the trial court. The NY Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Allhusen's lawsuit.
Can parties limit the freedom of assignability in specific contracts?May a party (Caristo) use an anti-assignment clause to prevent another party (Kroo) from assigning its contractual rights?
Case Text Links
- Summary at CaseText
- Video summary at Quimbee
- Case text at Leagle
- Case Brief at lawschoolcasebriefs.net