Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Solow Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Solow Development Corp.

51 A.D.2d 562, 378 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 562 (Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Solow 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

Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Solow Development Corp., 51 A.D.2d 562, 378 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a contract, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 29, 1975, in favor of plaintiff upon the trial court’s granting of its motion (a) for a directed verdict and (b) for dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 27, 1975, which denied defendant’s motion inter alia to set aside the directed verdict. Judgment and order reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact issues were raised on this appeal. The trial court erred when it failed to submit the case to the jury. The primary issue of whether plaintiff performed all of the terms of the contract on its part to be performed, or whether it abandoned its obligations under the contract prior to completion of its work, raises questions of fact requiring a resolution by the jury. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a contract, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 29, 1975, in favor of plaintiff upon the trial court’s granting of its motion (a) for a directed verdict and (b) for dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 27, 1975, which denied defendant’s motion inter alia to set aside the directed verdict. Judgment and order reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No fact issues were raised on this appeal. The trial court erred when it failed to submit the case to the jury. The primary issue of whether plaintiff performed all of the terms of the contract on its part to be performed, or whether it abandoned its obligations under the contract prior to completion of its work, raises questions of fact requiring a resolution by the jury. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 562, 378 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rael-automatic-sprinkler-co-v-solow-development-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack