Richard's Home Center & Lumber, Inc. v. Kraft

199 A.D.2d 254, 604 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11311
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 6, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 254 (Richard's Home Center & Lumber, Inc. v. Kraft) 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
Richard's Home Center & Lumber, Inc. v. Kraft, 199 A.D.2d 254, 604 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Hopkins, J.H.O.), entered January 31, 1991, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that "[a] decision [rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should] not be disturbed on appeal unless it is [clear] that [its] conclusions could not [have been] reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830; Alleva v Alieva Dairy, 129 AD2d 663). This is especially true when findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to credibility of witnesses (see, Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822, 823).

In the present case, the trial court evaluated all of the evidence and rendered an extensive decision holding that the defendant was under a duty to pay the plaintiff for the price of building materials delivered to the defendant’s home. However, the plaintiff failed to establish that it had delivered building materials to the defendant’s home for which it had not been paid. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was in breach of contract. We find that the record amply supports the trial court’s conclusions, and, accordingly, find no reason to disturb the judgment entered thereon. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ardmar Realty Co. v. Building Inspector of the Village of Tuckahoe
5 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Firstar Bank v. Palmer
2 A.D.3d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Mann v. Lovett & Gould
289 A.D.2d 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church v. Alexander
279 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
American Psych Systems, Inc. v. Options Independent Practice Ass'n
276 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Islamic Center of Harrison, Inc. v. Islamic Science Foundation, Inc.
262 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Casale v. Bos
261 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Langsam v. Schweitzer
240 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Tornese v. Tornese
233 A.D.2d 316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Bucci v. Bucci
231 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
State Farm Mutual Insurance Companies v. Goldberg
226 A.D.2d 115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 254, 604 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-home-center-lumber-inc-v-kraft-nyappdiv-1993.