Edelstein v. Pirrotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelstein v. Pirrotti

286 A.D.2d 660, 729 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 660 (Edelstein v. Pirrotti) 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

Edelstein v. Pirrotti, 286 A.D.2d 660, 729 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 14, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $564,568.47.

[661]*661Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict on the issue of liability was not against the weight of the evidence, as the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendants from introducing testimony as to the extensiveness of the work performed by the plaintiffs, the referring attorneys, in an underlying personal injury action. There was proof from which the jury could find that the plaintiffs had performed services in that action (see, Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d 549; Sickmen v Birzon, Szczepanowski & Quinn, 276 AD2d 689; see generally, Getreu v Plaxall, Inc., 261 AD2d 574; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 14, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $564,568.47.

[661]*661Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict on the issue of liability was not against the weight of the evidence, as the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendants from introducing testimony as to the extensiveness of the work performed by the plaintiffs, the referring attorneys, in an underlying personal injury action. There was proof from which the jury could find that the plaintiffs had performed services in that action (see, Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d 549; Sickmen v Birzon, Szczepanowski & Quinn, 276 AD2d 689; see generally, Getreu v Plaxall, Inc., 261 AD2d 574; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 660, 729 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelstein-v-pirrotti-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack