From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosamilia v. Dannecker

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51424 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Opinion

2002-912 RI C.

Decided October 2, 2003.

Appeal by defendants from so much of a small claims judgment of the Civil Court, Richmond County (E. Vitaliano, J.), entered February 21, 2002, as awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $750.

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ARONIN and PATTERSON, JJ.


In this small claims action to recover damages for breach of contract, the parties disagreed as to whether the contract of sale of the defendants' home included the air conditioning units. Plaintiff presented a fully executed copy of the contract which indicated that the air conditioning units were included and defendants presented a fully executed copy of the contract which contained handwritten cross-outs which excluded from the sale, among other things, the air conditioning units. In our opinion, the court rendered substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law when it found that the air conditioning units were included in the sale and that defendants breached the contract by removing the air conditioning units from the house ( see CCA 1807). We note that we do not pass upon the propriety of the damage award as it was not raised on appeal.


Summaries of

Rosamilia v. Dannecker

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51424 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)
Case details for

Rosamilia v. Dannecker

Case Details

Full title:JUSTINE M. ROSAMILIA, Respondent, v. PAUL DANNECKER and DAWN DANNECKER…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 2003

Citations

2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51424 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Citing Cases

DiCostanzo v. Jeffrey Ween & Assocs.

We therefore conclude that the Civil Court properly ruled in favor of defendant on this issue. We note that…