Park East Construction Corp. v. East Coast Mechanical Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Park East Construction Corp. v. East Coast Mechanical Services, Inc.

133 A.D.3d 581, 18 N.Y.S.3d 560

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2015

Docket2013-10849

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 581 (Park East Construction Corp. v. East Coast Mechanical Services, Inc.) 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

Park East Construction Corp. v. East Coast Mechanical Services, Inc., 133 A.D.3d 581, 18 N.Y.S.3d 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In a class action, inter alia, to *582 recover damages for breach of contract and for diversion of trust assets pursuant to article 3-A of the Lien Law, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff (a) on behalf of Davidson Group Companies, Inc., doing business as Gilmour Supply Co., and against them in the total sum of $101,400.84, (b) on behalf of Associated Testing and Balancing, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $3,888.10, (c) on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $14,267.08, (d) on behalf of Island Insulation, and against the defendants William Sallee and Carlyle J. Sallee in the total sum of $58,281.26, and (e) against the defendants, in effect, dismissing their counterclaim, and (f) awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although the decision of the trial court upon which the judgment was based did not state the essential facts upon which the findings on the issue of damages were based (see CPLR 4213 [b]), this Court has before it the complete trial record, which is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see CPLR 4213 [b]; McGillvery v City of New York, 22 AD3d 537, 537 [2005]; Atlantic Contr. Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 155 AD2d 571, 572 [1989]; McKnight v Murabito, 139 AD2d 571, 571 [1988]).

We conclude that the judgment was warranted by the facts presented at trial (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; DeAngelis v DeAngelis, 104 AD3d 901, 902 [2013]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Chambers, J.P., Hall, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In a class action, inter alia, to *582 recover damages for breach of contract and for diversion of trust assets pursuant to article 3-A of the Lien Law, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon a decision of the same court dated July 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff (a) on behalf of Davidson Group Companies, Inc., doing business as Gilmour Supply Co., and against them in the total sum of $101,400.84, (b) on behalf of Associated Testing and Balancing, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $3,888.10, (c) on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $14,267.08, (d) on behalf of Island Insulation, and against the defendants William Sallee and Carlyle J. Sallee in the total sum of $58,281.26, and (e) against the defendants, in effect, dismissing their counterclaim, and (f) awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although the decision of the trial court upon which the judgment was based did not state the essential facts upon which the findings on the issue of damages were based (see CPLR 4213 [b]), this Court has before it the complete trial record, which is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see CPLR 4213 [b]; McGillvery v City of New York, 22 AD3d 537, 537 [2005]; Atlantic Contr. Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 155 AD2d 571, 572 [1989]; McKnight v Murabito, 139 AD2d 571, 571 [1988]).

We conclude that the judgment was warranted by the facts presented at trial (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; DeAngelis v DeAngelis, 104 AD3d 901, 902 [2013]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Chambers, J.P., Hall, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 581, 18 N.Y.S.3d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-east-construction-corp-v-east-coast-mechanical-services-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack