Dusenbury v. State , 266 A.D. 889 ( 1943 )

Crapser, Heffeman and Sehenek, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Bliss, J., dissent upon the ground that chapter 142 of the Laws of 1938 constituted a change in plans on the part of the State and under the contract claimant was entitled to receive the actual cost of the discarded plans.