Charles Mackall & Co. v. Carlyle Construction Corp.

215 A.D.2d 251, 628 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338

This text of 215 A.D.2d 251 (Charles Mackall & Co. v. Carlyle Construction Corp.) 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
Charles Mackall & Co. v. Carlyle Construction Corp., 215 A.D.2d 251, 628 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 2, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover a finder’s fee, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury that plaintiff could recover the reasonable value of its services, since plaintiff did not plead quantum meruit, seek to amend its pleading to conform to proof substantiating such theory (Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 53 NY2d 499, 509), or include such theory in its written requests to charge. In any event, there was no proof of the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services (Bauman Assocs. v H & M Intl. Transp., 171 AD2d 479, 484). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Weinberg v. D-M Restaurant Corp.
426 N.E.2d 459 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Bauman Associates, Inc. v. H & M International Transport, Inc.
171 A.D.2d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 251, 628 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-mackall-co-v-carlyle-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1995.