Goldstein v. Leichter

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Leichter

123 N.Y.S. 2

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 2 (Goldstein v. Leichter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Leichter, 123 N.Y.S. 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This action was brought to recover for a balance alleged to be due for services rendered and materials furnished under a building contract made between the parties. The complaint alleged substantial performance. Upon the trial, the plaintiff was permitted to give testimony of an oral agreement which materially varied the terms of the written contract upon which he declared. The questions soliciting this evidence were objected to by the defendant, overruled by the court, and an exception taken to the erroneous rulings.

The facts adduced by the plaintiff were insufficient to establish substantial performance of the contract, and conclusions to which he testified over the defendant’s objections and exceptions were erroneously-permitted to remain in the record. For the errors above set forth, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

LEHMAN, J., concurs. PAGE, J., dissents.

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

SEABURY, J.

This action was brought to recover for a balance alleged to be due for services rendered and materials furnished under a building contract made between the parties. The complaint alleged substantial performance. Upon the trial, the plaintiff was permitted to give testimony of an oral agreement which materially varied the terms of the written contract upon which he declared. The questions soliciting this evidence were objected to by the defendant, overruled by the court, and an exception taken to the erroneous rulings.

The facts adduced by the plaintiff were insufficient to establish substantial performance of the contract, and conclusions to which he testified over the defendant’s objections and exceptions were erroneously-permitted to remain in the record. For the errors above set forth, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

LEHMAN, J., concurs. PAGE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-leichter-nyappterm-1910.