Sciortino & DiPilato Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sollecito

286 A.D.2d 762, 730 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8694
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 762 (Sciortino & DiPilato Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sollecito) 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
Sciortino & DiPilato Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sollecito, 286 A.D.2d 762, 730 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Friedman, J.), dated April 14, 2000, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded it damages in the principal sum of only $2,521.85.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $2,521.85 is deleted, a provision awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $8,396.85 is substituted therefor, the provision thereof awarding the defendant a net award of $2,124.96 is deleted, and a provision awarding the plaintiff a net award in the principal sum of $3,750.04 is substituted therefor.

The plaintiff correctly asserts that damages in this case should have been measured by “the contract price, less pay-[763]*763merits made arid less the cost of completion” (New Era Homes Corp. v Forster, 299 NY 303, 307; see, New Day Bldrs. v SJC Realty, 219 AD2d 623). The Supreme Court erred in limiting the plaintiff to the amount stated in the mechanics hen. Here, the contract price, less payments made, equaled $5,875. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff supplied extras valued at $2,521.85, such that, before applying the offset for the cost of completion, the plaintiff was owed $8,396.85. Reducing the plaintiff’s damages by $4,646.81, the amount the Supreme Court awarded to the defendant on his counterclaim for the reasonable cost to complete the project, entitles the plaintiff to a net award in the principal sum of $3,750.04. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Inspectronic Corp. v. Gottlieb Skanska, Inc.
135 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Hydraulitall, Inc. v. Jones Inlet Marina, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D.2d 762, 730 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciortino-dipilato-plumbing-heating-inc-v-sollecito-nyappdiv-2001.