Dearstine v. Dunckel

223 A.D. 795
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D. 795 (Dearstine v. Dunckel) 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
Dearstine v. Dunckel, 223 A.D. 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The house, when finished, was several inches out of plumb, through the fault of the contractors. The learned trial court found that this substantial defect had been waived by the owners. The evidence did not justify the finding. The boiler of the heating plant gave unsatisfactory service. It was not the kind specified in the contract. No explanation of this was given. Substantial compliance was not shown. (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N. Y. 239.) The owners did not accept the work by moving into the house. (Cawley v. Weiner, 236 N. Y. 357.) The judgment appealed from should be reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Judgment reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. The court disapproves of findings of fact numbered five, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve.

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

Related

Seawane Greens, Inc. v. Bailey
24 Misc. 2d 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Rubin v. Coles
142 Misc. 139 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D. 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dearstine-v-dunckel-nyappdiv-1928.