Third Manhattan Corp. v. Consolidated Electric Meter Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Third Manhattan Corp. v. Consolidated Electric Meter Co.

18 A.D.2d 1055, 238 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043

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

DecidedApril 2, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1055 (Third Manhattan Corp. v. Consolidated Electric Meter Co.) 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

Third Manhattan Corp. v. Consolidated Electric Meter Co., 18 A.D.2d 1055, 238 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of reducing the setoff on defendant’s counterclaim to $2,393.78 and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The modification refers to two items in defendant’s setoff. Defendant was credited with $495, the contract price for the removal of the meters. Defendant did not remove the meters although requested to do so. This item should have been disallowed. Defendant was also credited with $503, an amount it would have earned had the contract not been cancelled. This sum represents the contract price for the performance of the services and defendant concedes it would have had to pay its employees half this sum for the labor involved. Defendant is entitled to set off its loss on this item, namely, $251.50. Its claim for the total amount is based on the assertion that it did not lay off any employees and its expenses were consequently not reduced. This fact is unimportant. Its measure of damage is still the loss >f profit which is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost of performing the service. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Yalente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of reducing the setoff on defendant’s counterclaim to $2,393.78 and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The modification refers to two items in defendant’s setoff. Defendant was credited with $495, the contract price for the removal of the meters. Defendant did not remove the meters although requested to do so. This item should have been disallowed. Defendant was also credited with $503, an amount it would have earned had the contract not been cancelled. This sum represents the contract price for the performance of the services and defendant concedes it would have had to pay its employees half this sum for the labor involved. Defendant is entitled to set off its loss on this item, namely, $251.50. Its claim for the total amount is based on the assertion that it did not lay off any employees and its expenses were consequently not reduced. This fact is unimportant. Its measure of damage is still the loss >f profit which is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost of performing the service. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Yalente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1055, 238 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/third-manhattan-corp-v-consolidated-electric-meter-co-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack