Blum v. Parisi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blum v. Parisi

135 A.D.2d 481, 522 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52444

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 481 (Blum v. Parisi) 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

Blum v. Parisi, 135 A.D.2d 481, 522 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered August 1, 1986, after a nonjury trial, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $36,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff substantially performed his obligations under the subject architectural agreement (see, Callanan Indus. v Smiroldo, 100 AD2d 717; Pilgrim Homes & Garages v Fiore, 75 AD2d 846, lv dismissed 51 NY2d 702) and that the defendant’s challenge to certain of the court’s evidentiary rulings are without merit (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 200, 357 [Prince 10th ed]; General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Kunzeman, 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, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered August 1, 1986, after a nonjury trial, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $36,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff substantially performed his obligations under the subject architectural agreement (see, Callanan Indus. v Smiroldo, 100 AD2d 717; Pilgrim Homes & Garages v Fiore, 75 AD2d 846, lv dismissed 51 NY2d 702) and that the defendant’s challenge to certain of the court’s evidentiary rulings are without merit (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 200, 357 [Prince 10th ed]; General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 481, 522 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blum-v-parisi-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack