High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Buckram Industries Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Buckram Industries Corp.

279 A.D.2d 610, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 827

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 610 (High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Buckram Industries Corp.) 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

High Steel Structures, Inc. v. Buckram Industries Corp., 279 A.D.2d 610, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the [611]*611defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered November 3, 1999, as, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff interest at a rate of 18% per annum and an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly determined that the contract set forth in the plaintiffs Exhibit 21 was the contract entered into by the parties (see, UCC 2-204 [1]; 2-207 [3]). Accordingly, the defendants were bound by the provisions thereof (see, Ruttenberg v Davidge Data Sys. Corp., 215 AD2d 191, 195). However, the court improperly awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee, since the defenses raised by the defendants were not “without substantial basis in fact or law” (State Finance Law § 137 [4] [c]). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the [611]*611defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered November 3, 1999, as, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff interest at a rate of 18% per annum and an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly determined that the contract set forth in the plaintiffs Exhibit 21 was the contract entered into by the parties (see, UCC 2-204 [1]; 2-207 [3]). Accordingly, the defendants were bound by the provisions thereof (see, Ruttenberg v Davidge Data Sys. Corp., 215 AD2d 191, 195). However, the court improperly awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee, since the defenses raised by the defendants were not “without substantial basis in fact or law” (State Finance Law § 137 [4] [c]). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 610, 719 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/high-steel-structures-inc-v-buckram-industries-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack