Nemrow v. Assembly Catering & Supply Co.

121 A.D. 481, 106 N.Y.S. 109, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 A.D. 481 (Nemrow v. Assembly Catering & Supply Co.) 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
Nemrow v. Assembly Catering & Supply Co., 121 A.D. 481, 106 N.Y.S. 109, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The Justice- gave judgment for the defendant, on the ground that there is no proper proof in this case , as to damages ”. The' -notion seems, to. have been that , the measure of -damages was the difference between the rental value of the place with and without the agreement for. heat, hot water and steam- being.kept. If this, were so, the evidence of falling off of customers' and receipts was [483]*483competent to show a decline in rental or usable value and the extent of it, according to tlie case of Reisert v. City of New York (174 N. Y. 196). But the measure of damages was the falling off in receipts, less the value of any food of the day that could be used thereafter. The net profit is not the measure of damages, for- all of • the expenses of the plaintiff, which had to be paid, out of the receipts, went .on, and they might exceed the net. profit. The rule. of the''seed cases is applicable. The crop failing, the expense of .labor arid money put into it has to be included in figuring up the damage, as well' as the "net' profit (White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 118). The rule that tjie measure of damages for breaches of contract includes gairis prevented and losses sustained has not been affected-by' the decision in Witherbee v. Meyer (155 N. Y. 446). That decision.only reiterates the limitations of the rule, i. e., the damages must be such as may be made reasonably certain by evidence, and must have been in the contemplation of the "parties in making the contract.

The judgment should be reversed.

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

Judgment of tlie Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Related

Bernsley v. Reiss
276 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Goldstein v. 104 Second Avenue Realty Corp.
194 Misc. 1 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1949)
Volga Realty Corp. v. Chauncey Holt Co.
104 Misc. 581 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Nemrow v. Assembly Catering & Supply Co.
111 N.Y.S. 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D. 481, 106 N.Y.S. 109, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nemrow-v-assembly-catering-supply-co-nyappdiv-1907.