Express Elevator Construction Co. v. Rashti Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Express Elevator Construction Co. v. Rashti Construction Corp.

133 A.D.3d 417, 18 N.Y.S.3d 528

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket16044 109212/11

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 417 (Express Elevator Construction Co. v. Rashti 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

Express Elevator Construction Co. v. Rashti Construction Corp., 133 A.D.3d 417, 18 N.Y.S.3d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered July 11, 2014, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff in the total amount of $104,158.31, and declaring that (1) plaintiff had a good, valid, and subsisting mechanic’s lien against defendants’ building; and (2) the building be sold and plaintiff receive the amount of the judgment from the proceeds of the sale, plus the expenses of the sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s findings that defendants unjustifiably canceled their contract with plaintiff, locked plaintiff out of the work site, and refused to pay the remainder of the contract price, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1st Dept 1990]; *418 409-411 Sixth St., LLC v Mogi, 22 NY3d 875, 876-877 [2013]). Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff breached the contract by using “used,” rather than new, elevator parts. Defendants’ challenges to the trial court’s “findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (id.), and we find no basis to disturb those findings (see Horsford v Bacott, 32 AD3d 310, 312 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 NY3d 874 [2007]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered July 11, 2014, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff in the total amount of $104,158.31, and declaring that (1) plaintiff had a good, valid, and subsisting mechanic’s lien against defendants’ building; and (2) the building be sold and plaintiff receive the amount of the judgment from the proceeds of the sale, plus the expenses of the sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s findings that defendants unjustifiably canceled their contract with plaintiff, locked plaintiff out of the work site, and refused to pay the remainder of the contract price, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1st Dept 1990]; *418 409-411 Sixth St., LLC v Mogi, 22 NY3d 875, 876-877 [2013]). Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff breached the contract by using “used,” rather than new, elevator parts. Defendants’ challenges to the trial court’s “findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (id.), and we find no basis to disturb those findings (see Horsford v Bacott, 32 AD3d 310, 312 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 NY3d 874 [2007]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 417, 18 N.Y.S.3d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/express-elevator-construction-co-v-rashti-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack