N. E. Blankman & Co. v. Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

N. E. Blankman & Co. v. Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp.

45 A.D.2d 861, 358 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 861 (N. E. Blankman & Co. v. Oakdale Sewerage Disposal 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

N. E. Blankman & Co. v. Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp., 45 A.D.2d 861, 358 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract, in which counterclaims were asserted, (1) plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 23, 1973 after a nonjury trial, except so much thereof as dismissed the counterclaim of defendant C. W. Lauman & Co., Inc. (the judgment otherwise dismissed the complaint, awarded money damages to defendants Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp. and Leon J. and Helen Grappell against plaintiff, directed plaintiff to execute instruments of easement and granted said defendants Grappell foreclosure of a mortgage), and (2) said defendants Oakdale and Grappell cross-appeal from so much of the judgment as omits to award them an additional $27,745 in damages. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision granting defendant Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp. an additional recovery against plaintiff of $27,745, with interest from May 1, 1968. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs against plaintiff. By agreement with defendants Grappell, plaintiff had the right to change the location of .an underground easement it was to provide for a forced main sewer line through the real property in suit. Plaintiff agreed that if it required such change it would pay any extra charges necessarily incurred by Oakdale. The undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff required the change and that the necessary and reasonable cost of relocating the ease-[862]*862meat was $27,745. In our opinion Oakdale should have been granted judgment against plaintiff for this additional amount. All of the other issues were properly disposed of by Mr. Justice Velsor in his well-considered opinion. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract, in which counterclaims were asserted, (1) plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 23, 1973 after a nonjury trial, except so much thereof as dismissed the counterclaim of defendant C. W. Lauman & Co., Inc. (the judgment otherwise dismissed the complaint, awarded money damages to defendants Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp. and Leon J. and Helen Grappell against plaintiff, directed plaintiff to execute instruments of easement and granted said defendants Grappell foreclosure of a mortgage), and (2) said defendants Oakdale and Grappell cross-appeal from so much of the judgment as omits to award them an additional $27,745 in damages. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision granting defendant Oakdale Sewerage Disposal Corp. an additional recovery against plaintiff of $27,745, with interest from May 1, 1968. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs against plaintiff. By agreement with defendants Grappell, plaintiff had the right to change the location of .an underground easement it was to provide for a forced main sewer line through the real property in suit. Plaintiff agreed that if it required such change it would pay any extra charges necessarily incurred by Oakdale. The undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff required the change and that the necessary and reasonable cost of relocating the ease-[862]*862meat was $27,745. In our opinion Oakdale should have been granted judgment against plaintiff for this additional amount. All of the other issues were properly disposed of by Mr. Justice Velsor in his well-considered opinion. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 861, 358 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-e-blankman-co-v-oakdale-sewerage-disposal-corp-nyappdiv-1974.