Dill v. Craftsman Storefronts & Glass, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dill v. Craftsman Storefronts & Glass, Inc.

170 A.D.2d 646, 567 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3208

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 646 (Dill v. Craftsman Storefronts & Glass, Inc.) 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

Dill v. Craftsman Storefronts & Glass, Inc., 170 A.D.2d 646, 567 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 30, 1989, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them on the defendant’s counterclaim in the principal sum of $64,138.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs allege that the award of damages was improperly calculated by the jury. We do not agree. The award of damages was clearly based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, the verdict will not be disturbed. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered June 30, 1989, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them on the defendant’s counterclaim in the principal sum of $64,138.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs allege that the award of damages was improperly calculated by the jury. We do not agree. The award of damages was clearly based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, the verdict will not be disturbed. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 646, 567 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dill-v-craftsman-storefronts-glass-inc-nyappdiv-1991.