Polygram Diversified Ventures, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polygram Diversified Ventures, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling Co.

243 A.D.2d 347, 664 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10261

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1997·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $495,436, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination grounded primarily on its resolution of credibility issues was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v Clowes, 224 AD2d 312) and we decline to disturb it. Plaintiffs damages were proven with the requisite certainty (Hirschfeld v IC Sec., 132 AD2d 332, 336-337, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 841) and defendant failed to sustain its burden of proving the value of the claimed mitigation (Jenkins v Etlinger, 55 NY2d 35, 39).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $495,436, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination grounded primarily on its resolution of credibility issues was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v Clowes, 224 AD2d 312) and we decline to disturb it. Plaintiffs damages were proven with the requisite certainty (Hirschfeld v IC Sec., 132 AD2d 332, 336-337, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 841) and defendant failed to sustain its burden of proving the value of the claimed mitigation (Jenkins v Etlinger, 55 NY2d 35, 39).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Polygram Diversified Ventures, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling Co., 243 A.D.2d 347, 664 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

243 A.D.2d 347 (Polygram Diversified Ventures, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related