Allhusen v. Caristo Construction Corp.

303 N.Y. 446,103 N.E.2d 891 (1952).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Caristo (D) subcontracted with Kroo to do painting. The subcontract contained the following provision: The assignment by the second party (Kroo) of this contract or any interests therein, or of any money due or to become due by reason of the terms hereof without the written consent of the first party [Caristo] shall be void. Kroo assigned the rights including monies due and to become due to a third company which in turn assigned them to Allhusen (P). P sought to recover on the assignment, but D contended that the contract prohibition against assignments must be given effect.