From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feeward Construction Co., Inc. v. Capolino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 31, 1992
181 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 31, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Norman A. Mordue, J.


Defendants' argument that plaintiff failed to plead and prove its possession of a home improvement contractor's license is unpreserved for appellate review, since defendants failed to timely object to any defect in the plaintiff's proof on this ground. In any event, oral testimony admitted on plaintiff's case indicated that all proper licenses and permits were obtained, and the home improvement license itself was produced on a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict. Under these circumstances, the judgment in plaintiff's favor should not be set aside.

We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Feeward Construction Co., Inc. v. Capolino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 31, 1992
181 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Feeward Construction Co., Inc. v. Capolino

Case Details

Full title:FEEWARD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent, v. LOUIS CAPOLINO et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 31, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 10

Citing Cases

Thorne v. Alleyne

Rather, in her brief on appeal, defendant, for the first time, asserts that plaintiff was not a licensed home…

RKS Elec. Corp. v. Drago

Under the circumstances, defendant should be given the opportunity to prove her damages in this regard.…