Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corf. v. Leinwand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corf. v. Leinwand

61 A.D.2d 884, 402 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 884 (Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corf. v. Leinwand) 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

Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corf. v. Leinwand, 61 A.D.2d 884, 402 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence presented a question of fact for the court, sitting without a jury, as to whether defendants owed to M & T Construction Company (M & T) an amount in excess of M & T’s indebtedness to plaintiff. It is apparent that the court treated the assignment as security for such indebtedness, and hence did not award to plaintiff the full amount which plaintiff claimed was owing by defendants to M & T. Since plaintiff is not cross-appealing, there is no basis for us to disturb the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—materials furnished, etc.) Present—Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence presented a question of fact for the court, sitting without a jury, as to whether defendants owed to M & T Construction Company (M & T) an amount in excess of M & T’s indebtedness to plaintiff. It is apparent that the court treated the assignment as security for such indebtedness, and hence did not award to plaintiff the full amount which plaintiff claimed was owing by defendants to M & T. Since plaintiff is not cross-appealing, there is no basis for us to disturb the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—materials furnished, etc.) Present—Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 884, 402 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-hill-concrete-mix-corf-v-leinwand-nyappdiv-1978.