Howes v. Peckham Road Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howes v. Peckham Road Corp.

22 A.D.2d 831, 253 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 831 (Howes v. Peckham Road 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

Howes v. Peckham Road Corp., 22 A.D.2d 831, 253 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff. The facts are set forth in our prior decision. (See 14 A D 2d 940.) The theory of the action was that following the termination of a rental contract, the defendant failed to return the rented crusher within a reasonable time. From the testimony, the trial court properly found that the crusher had not been returned within a reasonable time and that the rental value of the machinery was $100 per day. The retention was unauthorized, but by reason of seasonal and other factors and of plaintiff’s obligation to mitigate his damage, the trial court properly limited damage to that incurred in but one month within the period of detention. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to award interest from April 28, 1960 only, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff. The facts are set forth in our prior decision. (See 14 A D 2d 940.) The theory of the action was that following the termination of a rental contract, the defendant failed to return the rented crusher within a reasonable time. From the testimony, the trial court properly found that the crusher had not been returned within a reasonable time and that the rental value of the machinery was $100 per day. The retention was unauthorized, but by reason of seasonal and other factors and of plaintiff’s obligation to mitigate his damage, the trial court properly limited damage to that incurred in but one month within the period of detention. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to award interest from April 28, 1960 only, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 831, 253 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howes-v-peckham-road-corp-nyappdiv-1964.