Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein

56 A.D.2d 1179, 866 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 1179 (Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein) 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

Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v. Goldstein, 56 A.D.2d 1179, 866 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), entered April 3, 2007. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court (Teresa D. Johnson, J.), dated September 21, 2006 in favor of plaintiff in a small claims action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff in this small claims action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law,” and thus we affirm (UJCA 1807; see generally Sten v Desrocher, 8 AD3d 915 [2004]; Coppola v Kandey Co., 236 AD2d 871 [1997]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), entered April 3, 2007. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court (Teresa D. Johnson, J.), dated September 21, 2006 in favor of plaintiff in a small claims action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff in this small claims action. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law,” and thus we affirm (UJCA 1807; see generally Sten v Desrocher, 8 AD3d 915 [2004]; Coppola v Kandey Co., 236 AD2d 871 [1997]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 1179, 866 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-home-improvement-inc-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack