Gambin v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gambin v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

257 A.D. 1037, 13 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8984

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

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1037 (Gambin v. Fidelity & Casualty 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

Gambin v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 257 A.D. 1037, 13 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find, in the record, evidence tending to establish that the plaintiff — by reason of his failure to furnish the defendant subcontractor with steel forms reasonably suitable for the construction of the work which was the subject of the contract — breached his contract and we conclude that a verdict for the defendant insurance company based thereon is not against the weight of evidence. We also conclude that, under the proofs, the jury was not required to return a verdict either for the plaintiff or for the defendant subcontractor on its counterclaim, and that the verdict of no cause of action, on both the claim and the counterclaim, was justified. We have carefully considered the additional grounds which appellant urges for reversal and are of the opinion that they are insufficient to warrant our disturbing the verdict of the jury. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant insurance company in an action for breach of contract. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find, in the record, evidence tending to establish that the plaintiff — by reason of his failure to furnish the defendant subcontractor with steel forms reasonably suitable for the construction of the work which was the subject of the contract — breached his contract and we conclude that a verdict for the defendant insurance company based thereon is not against the weight of evidence. We also conclude that, under the proofs, the jury was not required to return a verdict either for the plaintiff or for the defendant subcontractor on its counterclaim, and that the verdict of no cause of action, on both the claim and the counterclaim, was justified. We have carefully considered the additional grounds which appellant urges for reversal and are of the opinion that they are insufficient to warrant our disturbing the verdict of the jury. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant insurance company in an action for breach of contract. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1037, 13 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambin-v-fidelity-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1939.