Swain v. 383 West Broadway Corp.

216 A.D.2d 38, 627 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 38 (Swain v. 383 West Broadway 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
Swain v. 383 West Broadway Corp., 216 A.D.2d 38, 627 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered April 8, 1994, awarding plaintiff damages in the principal amount of $462,268, unanimously modified, on the facts, to the extent of remanding the matter for a new trial solely on the issue of damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs paintings were destroyed when a steam pipe burst in the storage area of defendant’s building. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that defendant had constructive notice of the deteriorated condition of the steam pipes, and, we would add, was also sufficient to establish liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (see, Payless Discount Ctrs. v 25-29 N. Broadway Corp., 83 AD2d 960; Dillenberger v 74 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp., 155 AD2d 327). The jury’s award of $462,268, representing the fair market value at retail of the paintings, did not take into account that most of [39]*39plaintiffs sales of paintings were made through art galleries that charged plaintiff commissions ranging from 25% to 50% of the selling price. The award, therefore, went beyond making plaintiff whole, amounting to a windfall that plaintiff would not have received had the paintings not been destroyed and been sold at retail instead. We decline to address those alleged errors that were not objected to, since they did not result in significant prejudice to defendant’s case. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

D.A. Bennett LLC v. Cartz
113 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ever Win, Inc. v. 1-10 Industry Associates
111 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ever Win, Inc. v. 1-10 Industry Associates, LLC
33 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Goode v. Bay Towers Apartments Corp.
1 Misc. 3d 381 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 38, 627 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swain-v-383-west-broadway-corp-nyappdiv-1995.