Jerry B. Wilson Roofing & Painting, Inc. v. Jobco—E. R. Kelly Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerry B. Wilson Roofing & Painting, Inc. v. Jobco—E. R. Kelly Associates, Inc.

151 A.D.2d 896, 542 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127

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

DecidedJune 22, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 896 (Jerry B. Wilson Roofing & Painting, Inc. v. Jobco—E. R. Kelly Associates, Inc.) 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

Jerry B. Wilson Roofing & Painting, Inc. v. Jobco—E. R. Kelly Associates, Inc., 151 A.D.2d 896, 542 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered February 5, 1988 in Otsego County, which, upon remittal from this court, granted a motion by plaintiff Wilson Roofing, Inc. for final judgment.

The events leading up to this appeal are recited in a previous decision of this court (128 AD2d 953). Upon remittal, plaintiff Wilson Roofing, Inc. (hereinafter plaintiff) moved for final judgment on the ground that the issue of damages had already been determined at the previous trial (see, 131 AD2d 972, 973). Supreme Court granted that motion and defendants appeal.

Defendants’ challenges to Supreme Court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are unavailing for they are either unpreserved for review or without substance. As to the merits of this case, the facts and law relating thereto have been thoroughly examined by Supreme Court in its decision, dated January 20, 1988, which we endorse. We add only that although the burden of proof regarding the value of the difference between substantial and full performance lies with plaintiff (see, Mirisis v Renda, 83 AD2d 572, 573), it is in plaintiff’s interest to prove that this offset against its recovery on a [897]*897contract is little or nothing. If defendants want a larger offset it is they who must produce evidence to that effect. There is, consequently, no inconsistency, contrary to defendants’ contention, in a finding of substantial performance despite plaintiff’s position of entitlement to the full contract price. As Supreme Court noted, defendants are not entitled to an offset where plaintiff’s failure to render full performance is attributable to denial of its contractual right to cure and its exclusion from the jobsite preventing it from completing the project (see, Savin Bros, v State of New York, 62 AD2d 511, 516).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered February 5, 1988 in Otsego County, which, upon remittal from this court, granted a motion by plaintiff Wilson Roofing, Inc. for final judgment.

The events leading up to this appeal are recited in a previous decision of this court (128 AD2d 953). Upon remittal, plaintiff Wilson Roofing, Inc. (hereinafter plaintiff) moved for final judgment on the ground that the issue of damages had already been determined at the previous trial (see, 131 AD2d 972, 973). Supreme Court granted that motion and defendants appeal.

Defendants’ challenges to Supreme Court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are unavailing for they are either unpreserved for review or without substance. As to the merits of this case, the facts and law relating thereto have been thoroughly examined by Supreme Court in its decision, dated January 20, 1988, which we endorse. We add only that although the burden of proof regarding the value of the difference between substantial and full performance lies with plaintiff (see, Mirisis v Renda, 83 AD2d 572, 573), it is in plaintiff’s interest to prove that this offset against its recovery on a [897]*897contract is little or nothing. If defendants want a larger offset it is they who must produce evidence to that effect. There is, consequently, no inconsistency, contrary to defendants’ contention, in a finding of substantial performance despite plaintiff’s position of entitlement to the full contract price. As Supreme Court noted, defendants are not entitled to an offset where plaintiff’s failure to render full performance is attributable to denial of its contractual right to cure and its exclusion from the jobsite preventing it from completing the project (see, Savin Bros, v State of New York, 62 AD2d 511, 516).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 896, 542 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-b-wilson-roofing-painting-inc-v-jobcoe-r-kelly-associates-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack