Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock

New York Court of Appeals

Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock

457 N.E.2d 781, 60 N.Y.2d 779, 469 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3473

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 457 N.E.2d 781 (Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock, 457 N.E.2d 781, 60 N.Y.2d 779, 469 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3473 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), the judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

Loss of the “entire profit”, as provided in the contract, is a proper measure of damages (Lieberman v Templar Motor Co., 236 NY 139, 149), and is recoverable where plaintiff has supplied some adequate basis for computing the amount, even where that amount cannot be precisely de[781]*781termined with absolute certainty (Wakeman v Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., 101 NY 205, 210).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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