Fred J. Fisher Contracting Corp. v. Marcam Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fred J. Fisher Contracting Corp. v. Marcam Contracting Co.

279 A.D. 911, 110 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D. 911 (Fred J. Fisher Contracting Corp. v. Marcam Contracting Co.) 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

Fred J. Fisher Contracting Corp. v. Marcam Contracting Co., 279 A.D. 911, 110 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment modified on the law and the facts by providing that interest upon the amount of the judgment be computed from the 2d day of July, 1951, instead of from the 31st day of May, 1951. As so modified, the order and judgment are unanimously affirmed, with a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements in favor of plaintiff-respondent and against appellant. Interest may not be computed from the date on which it is claimed that the contract was breached, for the breach has not as yet been established. (Freedman v. Mart & Early Co., 162 Misc. 487.) Accordingly, interest may not be computed from a date earlier than the date of the service of the sum[912]*912mens. (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Gray, 278 N. Y. 380; Freedman v. Hart & Early Co., 162 Misc. 487, supra.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ.

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

Order and judgment modified on the law and the facts by providing that interest upon the amount of the judgment be computed from the 2d day of July, 1951, instead of from the 31st day of May, 1951. As so modified, the order and judgment are unanimously affirmed, with a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements in favor of plaintiff-respondent and against appellant. Interest may not be computed from the date on which it is claimed that the contract was breached, for the breach has not as yet been established. (Freedman v. Mart & Early Co., 162 Misc. 487.) Accordingly, interest may not be computed from a date earlier than the date of the service of the sum[912]*912mens. (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Gray, 278 N. Y. 380; Freedman v. Hart & Early Co., 162 Misc. 487, supra.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 911, 110 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-j-fisher-contracting-corp-v-marcam-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack