Shroid Construction, Inc. v. Joseph Dattoma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shroid Construction, Inc. v. Joseph Dattoma

278 A.D.2d 223, 716 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 223 (Shroid Construction, Inc. v. Joseph Dattoma) 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

Shroid Construction, Inc. v. Joseph Dattoma, 278 A.D.2d 223, 716 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered May 26, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $105,297.

[224]*224Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the plaintiffs summary charts, which were the plaintiffs Exhibits 2B through 4. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in basing its award upon those exhibits (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v State of New York, 258 AD2d 431; see also, Suffolk County Bldrs. Assn, v County of Suffolk, 46 NY2d 613, 621; Berley Indus. v City of New York, 45 NY2d 683, 686).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 a collective bargaining agreement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered May 26, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $105,297.

[224]*224Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the plaintiffs summary charts, which were the plaintiffs Exhibits 2B through 4. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in basing its award upon those exhibits (see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v State of New York, 258 AD2d 431; see also, Suffolk County Bldrs. Assn, v County of Suffolk, 46 NY2d 613, 621; Berley Indus. v City of New York, 45 NY2d 683, 686).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 223, 716 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shroid-construction-inc-v-joseph-dattoma-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack