ACPI, Ltd. v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ACPI, Ltd. v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc.

96 A.D.2d 543, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19072

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 543 (ACPI, Ltd. v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc.) 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

ACPI, Ltd. v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., 96 A.D.2d 543, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, defendant appeals from a decision and judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated June 22, 1982 and July 2, 1982, respectively, which, after a nonjury trial, are in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $7,200. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Judgment affirmed. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. The record supports the trial court’s finding that “the plaintiff performed in excess of the contract requirements for the entire contract.” We have considered the defendant’s other arguments and have found them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, defendant appeals from a decision and judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated June 22, 1982 and July 2, 1982, respectively, which, after a nonjury trial, are in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $7,200. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Judgment affirmed. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. The record supports the trial court’s finding that “the plaintiff performed in excess of the contract requirements for the entire contract.” We have considered the defendant’s other arguments and have found them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 543, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acpi-ltd-v-cherry-hill-textiles-inc-nyappdiv-1983.