From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Birnhak v. Hollender

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1899
29 Misc. 640 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Opinion

November, 1899.

Jacob Rieger, for appellant.

Edward J. Kenney, Jr., for respondent.


Testimony was given at the trial of this action tending to establish that the plaintiff undertook with the defendant to furnish certain material, and, by himself and others, to do certain work for the sum of sixty dollars, and that after part performance he was prevented by the defendant from completing his undertaking. Thereupon he was awarded a judgment for the full sum of sixty dollars. This was contrary to law, for, according to the well-settled rule respecting the measure of damages in an action for a violation of an executory agreement, the party who has been wrongfully deprived of the gains and profits may recover as an equivalent, and by way of damages, only the difference between the contract price, the amount which he would have earned and been entitled to recover on performance, and the amount which it would have cost him to perform the contract. Devlin v. Mayor, 63 N.Y. 8; Masterton v. Mayor, 7 Hill, 61. The judgment should be reversed.

FREEDMAN, P.J., and LEVENTRITT, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Birnhak v. Hollender

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1899
29 Misc. 640 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)
Case details for

Birnhak v. Hollender

Case Details

Full title:MAX BIRNHAK, Respondent, v . HENRY HOLLENDER, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1899

Citations

29 Misc. 640 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)
61 N.Y.S. 118

Citing Cases

Filmline Prod. v. United Artists

To avoid such a windfall to the plaintiff, the court held that the plaintiff was only entitled to receive the…

Alm v. Unified Church Structures, Inc.

ff's complaint where the complaint clearly set forth a cause of action for breach of express contract, and…