Coppola v. Kraushaar

6 Citing cases

  1. Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

    108 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 28 times

    Thus, damages may not be recovered where the consequences of the breach are remote and indirect. "No one is answerable in law for all the remote consequences of his own acts" (36 N.Y. Jur 2d, Damages, § 13, at 29, citing Hoffman v King, 160 N.Y. 618; Coppola v Kraushaar, 102 App. Div. 306). In addition to the foreseeability requirement, to be recoverable "'damages must be not merely speculative, possible and imaginary, but they must be reasonably certain * * * They may be so uncertain, contingent and imaginary as to be incapable of adequate proof, and then they cannot be recovered because they cannot be proved'" ( Najjar Indus. v City of New York, 87 A.D.2d 329, 334, quoting Wakeman v Wheeler Wilson Mfg. Co., 101 N.Y. 205, 209).

  2. Freund v. Washington Sq. Press

    41 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    The sole remuneration alluded to in the contract was the distribution of royalties. A failure of plaintiff to obtain a promotion, therefore, is not a foreseeable consequence of the publisher's breach of contract (cf. Coppola v. Kraushaar, 102 App. Div. 306). Furthermore, a comparison of the present work of the plaintiff with other books which he already published as a measure of monetary damage would be incapable of evaluation because of the many variables involved such as different subject matter and differing dates of publication (cf. Broadway Photoplay Co. v. World Film Corp., 225 N.Y. 104; Carnera v. Schmeling, 236 App. Div. 460).

  3. Nugent v. Rowland

    178 App. Div. 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

    But it is contended that the mere breach of the contract gave rise to a cause of action for nominal damages at least. In Pecke v. Hydraulic Construction Co. ( 23 App. Div. 393) it was unanimously stated by this court that a counterclaim under section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be upon a cause of action which will materially diminish the plaintiff's recovery, and that a counterclaim for nominal damages is not authorized. It was, however, stated by the Second Department in Coppola v. Kraushaar ( 102 App. Div. 306), without citing or considering Pecke v. Hydraulic Construction Co. ( supra), that a counterclaim for nominal damages is authorized. Manifestly this counterclaim was not pleaded upon the theory that the respondent was entitled to nominal damages, for if he had brought an action on the counterclaim and it had been held that he was entitled to recover nominal damages only, he would have been mulcted in costs, less six cents; and if the complaint had been dismissed an appellate court would not reverse the judgment to entitle him to recover nominal damages. ( Devendorf v. Wert, 42 Barb. 228.) There are cases holding that a demurrer for insufficiency will not be sustained to a complaint showing a cause of action for only nominal damages.

  4. Veit v. McCauslan

    157 App. Div. 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913)   Cited 2 times

    The question presented is one of pleading. ( Coppola v. Kraushaar, 102 App. Div. 306; Staiger v. Klitz, 129 id. 703.) The plaintiff complains in his first cause of action that Johanne Kemmna died intestate in 1910; that the defendant qualified as her administrator; that the said Kemmna, on or about November 30, 1906, executed and delivered to plaintiff a full covenant and warranty deed of certain described premises; that the said deed "contained a covenant, that the said Johanne Kemmna was seized of the said premises in fee simple and had good right to convey the same, and the said Johanne Kemmna, in her said deed, so delivered as aforesaid to the plaintiff, covenanted forever to warrant the title to the said premises;" "that the said Johanne Kemmna, at the time of the execution and delivery of the aforesaid deed to plaintiff, was not seized in fee simple of the premises described in said deed and never had title to said premises and had no right to convey the same.

  5. Finkelstein v. Selwitz

    79 Misc. 28 (N.Y. App. Term 1913)

    "It is not material that the plaintiff did not demand the precise damage to which he was entitled, or that he mistook the true rule of damages in his complaint." See also Coppola v. Kraushaar, 102 A.D. 306. The judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to appellant to abide the event.

  6. Hochberg v. N Y C Off-Track Betting

    74 Misc. 2d 471 (N.Y. Misc. 1973)   Cited 15 times
    In Hochberg v. New York Off-Track Betting Corp., 74 Misc.2d 471, 343 N.Y.S.2d 651, 656 (1973), the court held, "Defendant, in this case, owes no duty to the plaintiff or any other OTB [New York [306 Ark. 321-G] City Off-Track Betting Corporation] bettor with respect to the accuracy of the information and neither plaintiff nor any other bettor is entitled to rely on the information and hold defendant liable for any mistakes therein."

    In an action for breach of contract to furnish two gowns to the plaintiff's betrothed, which were agreed to be delivered before a specified day, on which the defendant had notice of the fact that the plaintiff intended to be married, damages sustained allegedly because the lady canceled her engagement by reason of the nondelivery of the dresses, together with other expenditures in connection with the wedding, were considered too speculative. ( Cappola v. Kraushaar, 102 App. Div. 306.) In Strough v. Conley ( 257 App. Div. 1057, app. dsmd. 283 N.Y. 631), holding that in an action against a village for failure to provide water to farm buildings and the premises of the owner pursuant to contract, a claim for damages for diminution in the amount of milk produced from the plaintiff's dairy was too speculative and conjectural and not recoverable.