U. S. Dry Wall, Inc. v. AFSCME Housing Corp. of Staten Island, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U. S. Dry Wall, Inc. v. AFSCME Housing Corp. of Staten Island, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 633, 296 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 633 (U. S. Dry Wall, Inc. v. AFSCME Housing Corp. of Staten Island, Inc.) 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

U. S. Dry Wall, Inc. v. AFSCME Housing Corp. of Staten Island, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 633, 296 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 28, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the judgment is against the weight of the credible evidence. The proof presented on damages and contract compliance was inadequate. We are of the further opinion that it was prejudicial error to limit the testimony of the witnesses Bauman and Resnick, who had knowledge of material facts and were competent to testify. On the retrial the trial court should make specific findings as to the facts (CPLR 4213, subd. [b]; Conklin v. State of New York, 22 A D 2d 481). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 28, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the judgment is against the weight of the credible evidence. The proof presented on damages and contract compliance was inadequate. We are of the further opinion that it was prejudicial error to limit the testimony of the witnesses Bauman and Resnick, who had knowledge of material facts and were competent to testify. On the retrial the trial court should make specific findings as to the facts (CPLR 4213, subd. [b]; Conklin v. State of New York, 22 A D 2d 481). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 633, 296 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/u-s-dry-wall-inc-v-afscme-housing-corp-of-staten-island-inc-nyappdiv-1968.