Ambursen Engineering Corp. v. Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambursen Engineering Corp. v. Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A.

276 A.D.2d 890

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 890 (Ambursen Engineering Corp. v. Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A.) 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

Ambursen Engineering Corp. v. Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A., 276 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On plaintiff’s appeal, we find that a proper appraisal of the

evidence, oral and documentary, clearly sustains the trial court’s determination-directing dismissal of plaintiff’s 'first cause of action and crediting defendant Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A., with $15,000 paid plaintiff on November 8, 1941; and the judgment so far as appealed from by plaintiff should be affirmed.

We think, too, that the trial court properly rejected on the merits defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s extensive services on quantum meruit were not rendered to defendant corporations or either of them as found by the court.

An examination of the record shows that the learned trial court acted with fairness and competence. In this long trial with so many complicated issues, we find no reversible error of law. On defendants’ appeal, however, we think that the amounts allowed by the trial court as the value of plaintiff’s services in the following causes of action on quantum meruit should be reduced to the amounts hereinafter indicated: (a) on plaintiff’s third cause of action (as to the U. S. lumber contract) from $20,000 to $10,000, and (b) on plaintiff’s fifth cause of action (proposed hydro-eleetrie plant) from $50,000 to $35,000.

The judgment appealed from should be modified accordingly and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from by the plaintiff, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, so far as apealed from by the defendants, unanimously modified by reducing the recovery on the third cause of action (as to the U. S. lumber contract) from $20,000 to $10,000, and on the fifth cause of action from $50,000 to $35,000 and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 999.]

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

Per Curiam.

On plaintiff’s appeal, we find that a proper appraisal of the

evidence, oral and documentary, clearly sustains the trial court’s determination-directing dismissal of plaintiff’s 'first cause of action and crediting defendant Fomento Industrial y Mercantil, S. A., with $15,000 paid plaintiff on November 8, 1941; and the judgment so far as appealed from by plaintiff should be affirmed.

We think, too, that the trial court properly rejected on the merits defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s extensive services on quantum meruit were not rendered to defendant corporations or either of them as found by the court.

An examination of the record shows that the learned trial court acted with fairness and competence. In this long trial with so many complicated issues, we find no reversible error of law. On defendants’ appeal, however, we think that the amounts allowed by the trial court as the value of plaintiff’s services in the following causes of action on quantum meruit should be reduced to the amounts hereinafter indicated: (a) on plaintiff’s third cause of action (as to the U. S. lumber contract) from $20,000 to $10,000, and (b) on plaintiff’s fifth cause of action (proposed hydro-eleetrie plant) from $50,000 to $35,000.

The judgment appealed from should be modified accordingly and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from by the plaintiff, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, so far as apealed from by the defendants, unanimously modified by reducing the recovery on the third cause of action (as to the U. S. lumber contract) from $20,000 to $10,000, and on the fifth cause of action from $50,000 to $35,000 and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 999.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambursen-engineering-corp-v-fomento-industrial-y-mercantil-s-a-nyappdiv-1950.