Schwartz v. Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C.

292 A.D.2d 586, 739 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 586 (Schwartz v. Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C.) 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

Schwartz v. Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C., 292 A.D.2d 586, 739 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for [587]*587negligence, the defendant Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated October 12, 2000, which, upon a decision of the same court, dated August 8, 2000, after a nonjury trial, finding the defendant to be negligent, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $14,829.73.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event. The Supreme Court’s findings of fact regarding liability are affirmed.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court’s finding that the appellant was professionally negligent was not against the weight of the evidence. Rather, it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520, 521; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). However, the plaintiffs should not have been awarded damages for the repair of the roof of their house, since this repair was explicitly recommended in the appellant’s post-inspection report. Therefore, the case should be remitted to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, 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 [587]*587negligence, the defendant Tauscher Cronacher Engineers, P.E., P.C., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated October 12, 2000, which, upon a decision of the same court, dated August 8, 2000, after a nonjury trial, finding the defendant to be negligent, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $14,829.73.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event. The Supreme Court’s findings of fact regarding liability are affirmed.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court’s finding that the appellant was professionally negligent was not against the weight of the evidence. Rather, it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520, 521; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). However, the plaintiffs should not have been awarded damages for the repair of the roof of their house, since this repair was explicitly recommended in the appellant’s post-inspection report. Therefore, the case should be remitted to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 586, 739 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-tauscher-cronacher-engineers-pe-pc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack