Weinrauch v. Kashkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinrauch v. Kashkin

78 A.D.2d 852, 432 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13550

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 1980·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a restrictive covenant in an employment contract, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 22, 1979, which dismissed the action at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case for failure to prove a prima facie case, at a nonjury trial limited to the issue of damages only, held pursuant to an order of this court dated August 7, 1978 on the disposition of a prior appeal (Weinrauch v Kashkin, 64 AD2d 897). Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff in the amount of 6 cents. While we agree with the trial court that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on actual damages, plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. In an action for breach of contract, where, as here, a breach on the part of the defendant is proven, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to recover at least nominal damages (see Leeds v Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 90 NY 26). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, 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 restrictive covenant in an employment contract, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 22, 1979, which dismissed the action at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case for failure to prove a prima facie case, at a nonjury trial limited to the issue of damages only, held pursuant to an order of this court dated August 7, 1978 on the disposition of a prior appeal (Weinrauch v Kashkin, 64 AD2d 897). Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff in the amount of 6 cents. While we agree with the trial court that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on actual damages, plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. In an action for breach of contract, where, as here, a breach on the part of the defendant is proven, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to recover at least nominal damages (see Leeds v Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 90 NY 26). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Weinrauch v. Kashkin, 78 A.D.2d 852, 432 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

78 A.D.2d 852 (Weinrauch v. Kashkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related