Cameras for Industry, Inc. v. I. D. Precision Components Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cameras for Industry, Inc. v. I. D. Precision Components Corp.

30 A.D.2d 526, 290 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3905

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 23, 1968·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of reducing the amount of the recovery to $91, with interest on said sum from April 22, 1963, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Referee correctly found a breach of contract, but his inclusion of loss of profits in the quantum of damages was in our opinion erroneous. Acceptable proof of a loss of that nature is quite lacking. The pertinent exhibit, apart from being incomplete, failed to meet the requirements of CPLR 4518 (subd. [a]). The underlying books and records from which the exhibit was prepared were not produced, and there was no witness who could testify to the accuracy of the exhibit. Nor were any of plaintiff’s customers called to testify to the placing or canceling of orders. We should add that we must conclude that the alleged facts in any event are insufficient to sustain a claim of the kind asserted. Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Tilzer, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of reducing the amount of the recovery to $91, with interest on said sum from April 22, 1963, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Referee correctly found a breach of contract, but his inclusion of loss of profits in the quantum of damages was in our opinion erroneous. Acceptable proof of a loss of that nature is quite lacking. The pertinent exhibit, apart from being incomplete, failed to meet the requirements of CPLR 4518 (subd. [a]). The underlying books and records from which the exhibit was prepared were not produced, and there was no witness who could testify to the accuracy of the exhibit. Nor were any of plaintiff’s customers called to testify to the placing or canceling of orders. We should add that we must conclude that the alleged facts in any event are insufficient to sustain a claim of the kind asserted. Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Tilzer, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cameras for Industry, Inc. v. I. D. Precision Components Corp., 30 A.D.2d 526, 290 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

30 A.D.2d 526 (Cameras for Industry, Inc. v. I. D. Precision Components Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related