Berkowitz v. Congregation Stropkower Chebra Joseph Chaim Anshei Sephard

City of New York Municipal Court

Berkowitz v. Congregation Stropkower Chebra Joseph Chaim Anshei Sephard

32 Misc. 767, 66 N.Y.S. 1126

DecidedOctober 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 767 (Berkowitz v. Congregation Stropkower Chebra Joseph Chaim Anshei Sephard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berkowitz v. Congregation Stropkower Chebra Joseph Chaim Anshei Sephard, 32 Misc. 767, 66 N.Y.S. 1126 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Conlan, J.

The action was to recover the value of certain alterations and repairs to a building. Certain things which were to be done under the original contract were varied by a subsequent contract, and it is claimed by the plaintiff that, under a still further agreement, there were certain extras called for, and which were required to be done in compliance with certain rules and regulations fixed by law.

The defendant pleads non-performance and alleges a counterclaim. The evidence is conflicting upon the question of extra work, and upon the question of performance. In the charge to the jury, the whole case was presented to them under all of the contracts and on all of the evidence, and the claims of the respective parties were fully explained. That the charge was eminently satisfactory to the parties is evidenced by the fact that no exception broad enough to cover any portion of the same was taken, and only reached to the form of language employed in certain requests made by the defendant. Upon an examination of the record, we do not find any errors which call for an interference with the result reached by the jury, and the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Hascall, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Conlan, J.

The action was to recover the value of certain alterations and repairs to a building. Certain things which were to be done under the original contract were varied by a subsequent contract, and it is claimed by the plaintiff that, under a still further agreement, there were certain extras called for, and which were required to be done in compliance with certain rules and regulations fixed by law.

The defendant pleads non-performance and alleges a counterclaim. The evidence is conflicting upon the question of extra work, and upon the question of performance. In the charge to the jury, the whole case was presented to them under all of the contracts and on all of the evidence, and the claims of the respective parties were fully explained. That the charge was eminently satisfactory to the parties is evidenced by the fact that no exception broad enough to cover any portion of the same was taken, and only reached to the form of language employed in certain requests made by the defendant. Upon an examination of the record, we do not find any errors which call for an interference with the result reached by the jury, and the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Hascall, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 767, 66 N.Y.S. 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-congregation-stropkower-chebra-joseph-chaim-anshei-sephard-nynyccityct-1900.