95 Van Dam Corp. v. V-Dog Home Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

95 Van Dam Corp. v. V-Dog Home Corp.

291 A.D.2d 331, 737 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2041

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 331 (95 Van Dam Corp. v. V-Dog Home Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

95 Van Dam Corp. v. V-Dog Home Corp., 291 A.D.2d 331, 737 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered October 25, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff damages for breach of contract in the total amount of $12,296.75, but included no award for lost profits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[332]*332The trial court properly determined that plaintiff, the owner of two condominium units in defendant condominium association’s building, was not entitled to damages for rental income it allegedly lost due to defendant’s breach of the condominium bylaws, when defendant refused to sign plaintiff’s application with the New York City Department of Buildings seeking permission for plaintiff to alter its leasable cellar space. Plaintiff failed to establish that it lost profits caused by the breach. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered October 25, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff damages for breach of contract in the total amount of $12,296.75, but included no award for lost profits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[332]*332The trial court properly determined that plaintiff, the owner of two condominium units in defendant condominium association’s building, was not entitled to damages for rental income it allegedly lost due to defendant’s breach of the condominium bylaws, when defendant refused to sign plaintiff’s application with the New York City Department of Buildings seeking permission for plaintiff to alter its leasable cellar space. Plaintiff failed to establish that it lost profits caused by the breach. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 331, 737 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/95-van-dam-corp-v-v-dog-home-corp-nyappdiv-2002.