From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teichman v. Arnow

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Jun 9, 2014
993 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

Opinion

No. 570218/14.

06-09-2014

Boris TEICHMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. John ARNOW, Defendant–Respondent.


Opinion

Judgment (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2013, affirmed, without costs.

The verdict issued upon the trial of this small claims action, dismissing plaintiff's lone remaining breach of contract claim against the defendant dentist, achieved substantial justice consistent with substantive law principles (see CCA 1804, 1807), plaintiff having failed to establish that defendant made “an express special promise to effect a cure or accomplish some definite result” (Clarke v. Mikail, 238 A.D.2d 538, 538 [1997] ). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's eve-of-trial application for a further adjournment of this matter previously marked “final.”

I concur.


Summaries of

Teichman v. Arnow

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Jun 9, 2014
993 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)
Case details for

Teichman v. Arnow

Case Details

Full title:Boris TEICHMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. John ARNOW, Defendant–Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 9, 2014

Citations

993 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)