Feeward Construction Co. v. Caroling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feeward Construction Co. v. Caroling

181 A.D.2d 632

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman A. Mordue, J., and a jury), entered on or about March 13, 1991, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $69,836.35, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ argument that plaintiff failed to plead and prove its possession of a home improvement contractor’s li[633]*633cense is unpreserved for appellate review, since defendants failed to timely object to any defect in the plaintiffs proof on this ground. In any event, oral testimony admitted on plaintiff’s case indicated that all proper licenses and permits were obtained, and the home improvement license itself was produced on a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Under these circumstances, the judgment in plaintiff’s favor should not be set aside.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman A. Mordue, J., and a jury), entered on or about March 13, 1991, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $69,836.35, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ argument that plaintiff failed to plead and prove its possession of a home improvement contractor’s li[633]*633cense is unpreserved for appellate review, since defendants failed to timely object to any defect in the plaintiffs proof on this ground. In any event, oral testimony admitted on plaintiff’s case indicated that all proper licenses and permits were obtained, and the home improvement license itself was produced on a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Under these circumstances, the judgment in plaintiff’s favor should not be set aside.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Feeward Construction Co. v. Caroling, 181 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 632 (Feeward Construction Co. v. Caroling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related