Foran v. People

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foran v. People

55 A.D.2d 838, 390 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 838 (Foran v. People) 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

Foran v. People, 55 A.D.2d 838, 390 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover money due for the rental of heavy construction equipment to defendant. The appeal presents only questions of fact as to the agreement between the parties and the reasonable rental value of the equipment. The trial court found upon sufficient evidence that appellant agreed to rent plaintiffs’ equipment and, inasmuch as the equipment was not rented for a specified period but on an as needed basis, the court properly found that the use should be paid for on an hourly rather than a monthly basis. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—foreclose mechanic’s lien.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover money due for the rental of heavy construction equipment to defendant. The appeal presents only questions of fact as to the agreement between the parties and the reasonable rental value of the equipment. The trial court found upon sufficient evidence that appellant agreed to rent plaintiffs’ equipment and, inasmuch as the equipment was not rented for a specified period but on an as needed basis, the court properly found that the use should be paid for on an hourly rather than a monthly basis. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—foreclose mechanic’s lien.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 838, 390 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foran-v-people-nyappdiv-1976.