Loyal Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. J & F Trucking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loyal Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. J & F Trucking Corp.

297 A.D.2d 785, 747 N.Y.2d 805, 747 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 785 (Loyal Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. J & F Trucking 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

Loyal Tire & Auto Center, Inc. v. J & F Trucking Corp., 297 A.D.2d 785, 747 N.Y.2d 805, 747 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at trial supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered to the defendant (see Paolangeli v Thaler, 187 AD2d 881; Aluminum Fair v Abdella, 90 AD2d 603). The plaintiff established the reasonable value of the services, and the amount awarded was not excessive (see Paolangeli v Thaler, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the Lien Law is unpreserved for appellate review. Altman, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at trial supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered to the defendant (see Paolangeli v Thaler, 187 AD2d 881; Aluminum Fair v Abdella, 90 AD2d 603). The plaintiff established the reasonable value of the services, and the amount awarded was not excessive (see Paolangeli v Thaler, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with the Lien Law is unpreserved for appellate review. Altman, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 785, 747 N.Y.2d 805, 747 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loyal-tire-auto-center-inc-v-j-f-trucking-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack