Woodruff v. Castaldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodruff v. Castaldo

139 A.D.2d 913, 527 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 913 (Woodruff v. Castaldo) 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

Woodruff v. Castaldo, 139 A.D.2d 913, 527 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we affirmed the Referee’s findings on liability and remitted the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages only (Woodruff v Castaldo, 113 AD2d 403, 408). Defendants’ attempt to relitigate the issue of liability is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 138 AD2d 946; Vanguard Tours v Town of Yorktown, 102 AD2d 868).

Plaintiffs were properly awarded damages for the diminution in rental value of the premises over the unexpired term of the lease. Plaintiffs’ expert calculated the total loss for the remaining years, then discounted that figure to compute the present value of such loss on the date the lease was commenced. That was the proper measure of damages (Woodruff v Castaldo, supra, at 409-410; see Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v S & M Enters., 67 NY2d 186, 194-196; Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329, cert denied 444 US 992).

Finally, the court properly awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest on such damages from the date of the breach (CPLR 5001 [a], [b]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Sullivan, J. — breach of contract.) Present— Denman, J. P., Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we affirmed the Referee’s findings on liability and remitted the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages only (Woodruff v Castaldo, 113 AD2d 403, 408). Defendants’ attempt to relitigate the issue of liability is barred by the doctrine of law of the case (see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 138 AD2d 946; Vanguard Tours v Town of Yorktown, 102 AD2d 868).

Plaintiffs were properly awarded damages for the diminution in rental value of the premises over the unexpired term of the lease. Plaintiffs’ expert calculated the total loss for the remaining years, then discounted that figure to compute the present value of such loss on the date the lease was commenced. That was the proper measure of damages (Woodruff v Castaldo, supra, at 409-410; see Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v S & M Enters., 67 NY2d 186, 194-196; Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329, cert denied 444 US 992).

Finally, the court properly awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest on such damages from the date of the breach (CPLR 5001 [a], [b]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Sullivan, J. — breach of contract.) Present— Denman, J. P., Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 913, 527 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-castaldo-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack