From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heller v. Tri-Boro Enterprises

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 8, 1960
28 Misc. 2d 585 (N.Y. App. Term 1960)

Opinion

December 8, 1960

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, SAUL PRICE, J.

Salamon Noble ( Milton Noble of counsel), for appellant.

Handelsman, Arutt Knox ( Maxwell Handelsman of counsel), for respondent.


The cabinets delivered were in exact accord with the contract. Plaintiff knew that actual installation might require adjustment for minute variations. However he chose to install them himself. He cannot now complain or seek to have a service performed for which he did not contract. Any finding based on a variance between the form of the contract when made and when offered in evidence was not based on proof sufficient to raise an issue.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant.

Concur — HECHT, J.P., STEUER and TILZER, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Heller v. Tri-Boro Enterprises

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 8, 1960
28 Misc. 2d 585 (N.Y. App. Term 1960)
Case details for

Heller v. Tri-Boro Enterprises

Case Details

Full title:JACK HELLER, Respondent, v. TRI-BORO ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 8, 1960

Citations

28 Misc. 2d 585 (N.Y. App. Term 1960)
219 N.Y.S.2d 918