Wellbilt Equipment Corp. v. Fireman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wellbilt Equipment Corp. v. Fireman

303 A.D.2d 269, 755 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2772

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 269 (Wellbilt Equipment Corp. v. Fireman) 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

Wellbilt Equipment Corp. v. Fireman, 303 A.D.2d 269, 755 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2001, which, in an action for breach of a construction contract, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, determined that defendant restaurant is liable in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of plaintiff contractor’s work and directed a hearing before a Special Referee on the issue of such value, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the parties entered into an oral agreement for the construction of defendant restaurant, the scope of work that had been agreed upon changed significantly during the course of construction. No basis exists to disturb the trial court’s finding, strongly supported by defendant’s judicial and extrajudicial admissions, that the parties, in recognition of such changes, reached an understanding that a new price term should be set, but were unable to reach agreement. In these circumstances, plaintiff could proceed on a theory of quantum meruit and did not have to elect its remedies (see Leroy Callender, P.C. v Fieldman, 252 AD2d 468 [1998]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2001, which, in an action for breach of a construction contract, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, determined that defendant restaurant is liable in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of plaintiff contractor’s work and directed a hearing before a Special Referee on the issue of such value, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the parties entered into an oral agreement for the construction of defendant restaurant, the scope of work that had been agreed upon changed significantly during the course of construction. No basis exists to disturb the trial court’s finding, strongly supported by defendant’s judicial and extrajudicial admissions, that the parties, in recognition of such changes, reached an understanding that a new price term should be set, but were unable to reach agreement. In these circumstances, plaintiff could proceed on a theory of quantum meruit and did not have to elect its remedies (see Leroy Callender, P.C. v Fieldman, 252 AD2d 468 [1998]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 269, 755 N.Y.S.2d 610, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellbilt-equipment-corp-v-fireman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack