Noyack Med. Partners, LLC v. OSK IX, LLC
This text of Noyack Med. Partners, LLC v. OSK IX, LLC (Noyack Med. Partners, LLC v. OSK IX, LLC) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Noyack Med. Partners, LLC v OSK IX, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 02211
April 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Noyack Medical Partners, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
OSK IX, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: April 14, 2026
Index No. 654665/21|Appeal No. 6343|Case No. 2025-01697|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Cuddy & Feder LLP, White Plains (Brendan M. Goodhouse of counsel), for appellant.
Borg & Bryks LLP, New York (M. Alexander Bowie, II of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $390,000, plus pre-judgment interest running from June 7, 2021 to the date judgment is entered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court's damages award was "based on a fair interpretation of the evidence" and was "not contrary to the weight of the evidence" (Lariviere v New York City Tr. Auth., 131 AD3d 1130, 1132-1133 [2d Dept 2015], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 1029 [2016]; see also Tanya Knitwear [PVT], Ltd. v Young Stuff Apparel Group, Inc., 12 AD3d 258, 258 [1st Dept 2004]). The court properly calculated damages based on the value of the taxi medallions as of June 7, 2021, the date of the breach (Uniform Commercial Code § 2-713; see Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn, 70 NY2d 76, 81-82 [1987]; Cole v Macklowe, 64 AD3d 480, 480 [1st Dept 2009]). In doing so, the court properly relied on a recent sale of the medallions to arrive at its valuation (see Matter of Allied Corp. v Town of Camillus, 80 NY2d 351, 356 [1992]).
Additionally, because plaintiff was not a covering buyer, it was not entitled to additional damages based on the expense of preparing the medallions for sale (Uniform Commercial Code § 1-305; cf. Fertico, 70 NY2d at 82, 84).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 14, 2026