Bay Refrigeration Corp. v. All Well Supplies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bay Refrigeration Corp. v. All Well Supplies, Inc.

213 A.D.2d 439, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 439 (Bay Refrigeration Corp. v. All Well Supplies, 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

Bay Refrigeration Corp. v. All Well Supplies, Inc., 213 A.D.2d 439, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered September 22, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $44,460.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the documented writing presented by the plaintiff evidencing the parties’ contract sufficed to satisfy the formal requirements of UCC 2-204 (1) and UCC 2-201 (see, Horn Waterproofing Corp. v Horn Constr. Co., 104 AD2d 851, 853). In addition, the trial court properly awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $44,460 as damages for the defendant’s breach (see, Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn., 70 NY2d 76, 84; UCC 1-106, 2-715 [2] [a], Comment 6).

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered September 22, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $44,460.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the documented writing presented by the plaintiff evidencing the parties’ contract sufficed to satisfy the formal requirements of UCC 2-204 (1) and UCC 2-201 (see, Horn Waterproofing Corp. v Horn Constr. Co., 104 AD2d 851, 853). In addition, the trial court properly awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $44,460 as damages for the defendant’s breach (see, Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn., 70 NY2d 76, 84; UCC 1-106, 2-715 [2] [a], Comment 6).

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 439, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-refrigeration-corp-v-all-well-supplies-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack