New York Cornice & Skylight Works v. Zipkin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Cornice & Skylight Works v. Zipkin

114 N.Y.S. 58

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 58 (New York Cornice & Skylight Works v. Zipkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York Cornice & Skylight Works v. Zipkin, 114 N.Y.S. 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff claims $300 balance due for work, materials, etc., furnished under a written contract. Defendant counterclaims $285 for the failure of plaintiff to perform the work according to contract. The court found in favor of defendant, and allowed defendant the full amount of the counterclaim (i. e., $285), for which sum, with costs, judgment was given for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Inasmuch as the evidence, taken in the view most favorable to defendant, shows that plaintiff is entitled to $300, less the defendant’s counterclaim of $285, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $15. While the appellate court has the power to modify the judgment, still, under the circumstances presented, we think a new trial should be granted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff claims $300 balance due for work, materials, etc., furnished under a written contract. Defendant counterclaims $285 for the failure of plaintiff to perform the work according to contract. The court found in favor of defendant, and allowed defendant the full amount of the counterclaim (i. e., $285), for which sum, with costs, judgment was given for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Inasmuch as the evidence, taken in the view most favorable to defendant, shows that plaintiff is entitled to $300, less the defendant’s counterclaim of $285, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $15. While the appellate court has the power to modify the judgment, still, under the circumstances presented, we think a new trial should be granted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-cornice-skylight-works-v-zipkin-nyappterm-1909.