Pav-Co Asphalt, Inc. v. Heartland Rental Properties Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pav-Co Asphalt, Inc. v. Heartland Rental Properties Partnership

278 A.D.2d 395, 718 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13227

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 12, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $55,642.20.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and its determination must be given great deference (see, Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826; Tursi v Perla, 241 AD2d 518; Smith v Comas, 173 AD2d 535; Plainview S. & S. Concrete Co. v NVNG Dev. Corp., 151 AD2d 654). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff substantially performed under the contract to construct a parking lot. The [396] defendants received that for which they bargained, a paved parking lot (see, Edgewater Constr. Co. v 81 & 3 of Watertown, 252 AD2d 951; Anderson Clayton & Co. v Alanthus Corp., 91 AD2d 985; cf., Gifford Constr. Co. v Lever Mgt. Corp., 78 AD2d 869), and expended no money in repairs on the parking lot from the date of its completion through the date of trial. Bracken, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 12, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $55,642.20.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and its determination must be given great deference (see, Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826; Tursi v Perla, 241 AD2d 518; Smith v Comas, 173 AD2d 535; Plainview S. & S. Concrete Co. v NVNG Dev. Corp., 151 AD2d 654). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff substantially performed under the contract to construct a parking lot. The [396] defendants received that for which they bargained, a paved parking lot (see, Edgewater Constr. Co. v 81 & 3 of Watertown, 252 AD2d 951; Anderson Clayton & Co. v Alanthus Corp., 91 AD2d 985; cf., Gifford Constr. Co. v Lever Mgt. Corp., 78 AD2d 869), and expended no money in repairs on the parking lot from the date of its completion through the date of trial. Bracken, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Pav-Co Asphalt, Inc. v. Heartland Rental Properties Partnership, 278 A.D.2d 395, 718 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 395 (Pav-Co Asphalt, Inc. v. Heartland Rental Properties Partnership) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related