Santa's Workshop v. Sterling

1 Citing case

  1. Westwood Chemical Co., Inc. v. Kulick

    570 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    Applying comparative negligence to reduce a damage award to reflect settlements the plaintiff entered into with certain potential tortfeasors prior to bringing a lawsuit against the defendant

    `the amount of loss sustained by it, including opportunities for profit on the accounts diverted from it through defendants' conduct' . . . or, stated differently, `the amount which [Westwood] would have made except for defendant[s'] wrong. . . .'McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. v. Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 652, 655, 403 N.Y.S.2d 511, 513 (1st Dep't 1978) (quoting Duane Jones Co. v. Burke, 306 N.Y. 172, 192, 117 N.E.2d 237, 247 (1954) Santa's Workshop, Inc. v. Sterling, 2 A.D.2d 262, 267, 153 N.Y.S.2d 839, 845 (3d Dep't 1956), aff'd per curiam, 3 N.Y.2d 757, 143 N.E.2d 529, 163 N.Y.S.2d 986 (1957)); see E.W. Bruno Co. v. Friedberg, 21 A.D.2d 336, 341, 250 N.Y.S.2d 187, 192 (1st Dep't 1964). The proper method of computing these damages is to estimate the net profits that Westwood would have earned from Synthetic for a reasonable period of time had Fletcher and Kulick not diverted the account to themselves.