Procan Construction Co. v. Oceanside Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Procan Construction Co. v. Oceanside Development Corp.

148 A.D.2d 689, 539 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.2d 689 (Procan Construction Co. v. Oceanside Development Corp.) 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

Procan Construction Co. v. Oceanside Development Corp., 148 A.D.2d 689, 539 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an oral contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered April 18, 1988, which is in favor of the defendant and against it, after a nonjury trial.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant action arose from an alleged oral contract to provide additional compensation to the plaintiff to perform [690]*690masonry work in the defendant’s condominium development. When the plaintiff discovered that the price it had negotiated in a separate written contract would not allow it to earn a profit on the job, it sought an additional $51,000 in compensation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, however, the trial court was correct in its finding that no oral agreement was ever reached. Indeed, crediting the candid testimony of the plaintiff’s president, at best the parties entered into an unenforceable agreement to agree (cf., Tamir v Greenberg, 119 AD2d 665, lv denied 68 NY2d 607). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s unilateral miscalculations do not entitle it to additional compensation not intended by the parties.

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Friedrich v Martin, 294 NY 588). Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an oral contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered April 18, 1988, which is in favor of the defendant and against it, after a nonjury trial.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant action arose from an alleged oral contract to provide additional compensation to the plaintiff to perform [690]*690masonry work in the defendant’s condominium development. When the plaintiff discovered that the price it had negotiated in a separate written contract would not allow it to earn a profit on the job, it sought an additional $51,000 in compensation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, however, the trial court was correct in its finding that no oral agreement was ever reached. Indeed, crediting the candid testimony of the plaintiff’s president, at best the parties entered into an unenforceable agreement to agree (cf., Tamir v Greenberg, 119 AD2d 665, lv denied 68 NY2d 607). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s unilateral miscalculations do not entitle it to additional compensation not intended by the parties.

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Friedrich v Martin, 294 NY 588). Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 689, 539 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procan-construction-co-v-oceanside-development-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack