Israels v. Macdonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Israels v. Macdonald

123 A.D. 63, 107 N.Y.S. 826, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D. 63 (Israels v. Macdonald) 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

Israels v. Macdonald, 123 A.D. 63, 107 N.Y.S. 826, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The learned trial Judge did not err in excluding the evidence of experts as to what the "cost of such -a building would be. The actual cost could be proved, and therefore, the case was not one for the opinion, calculation or estimate of experts. No case is cited to the contrary. Nor was the statement of one of the plaintiffs before the plans and specifications were drawn, of the amount the building would or was to cost, evidence of the actual cost; it' was only an estimate or opinion. The same is true of the' statement. as to cost in the plans and specifications filed with the building department. There being no evidence of the actual cost, the case called for a non-suit. •

But the plaintiffs now claim that at all events they were entitled to recover some small items amounting to about $233, whereas the action is for $3,298.97. The claim is very obscure, to say the least.But- it suffices that it was not made below. On the contrary, in ' opposing the motion for a non-suit, counsel for the plaintiffs claimed the right to go to the jury on the evidence of the cost of the building only. If, apart from that, lie claimed that the evidence established a right to recover some other item, he should have pointed it out. -

' The judgment should be affirmed.

Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The learned trial Judge did not err in excluding the evidence of experts as to what the "cost of such -a building would be. The actual cost could be proved, and therefore, the case was not one for the opinion, calculation or estimate of experts. No case is cited to the contrary. Nor was the statement of one of the plaintiffs before the plans and specifications were drawn, of the amount the building would or was to cost, evidence of the actual cost; it' was only an estimate or opinion. The same is true of the' statement. as to cost in the plans and specifications filed with the building department. There being no evidence of the actual cost, the case called for a non-suit. •

But the plaintiffs now claim that at all events they were entitled to recover some small items amounting to about $233, whereas the action is for $3,298.97. The claim is very obscure, to say the least.But- it suffices that it was not made below. On the contrary, in ' opposing the motion for a non-suit, counsel for the plaintiffs claimed the right to go to the jury on the evidence of the cost of the building only. If, apart from that, lie claimed that the evidence established a right to recover some other item, he should have pointed it out. -

' The judgment should be affirmed.

Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D. 63, 107 N.Y.S. 826, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/israels-v-macdonald-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack