Opinion
June 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
In this action to recover unpaid fees for maintenance and cleaning services, we find ample evidence in the record to support the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for the full amount of its invoices, less $30,000 that defendants paid "on account". We agree with the trial court that defendants' counterclaim for fraud was not pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Daukas v. Shearson Hammill Co., 23 A.D.2d 833), and that plaintiff made out a prima facie case of breach of contract based on the evidence that defendants orally agreed to pay for plaintiff's services in accordance with the service contract defendants had with the former owner of the building. (See, Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400.) The comments made by the court to a defense witness during cross-examination and to defendants' counsel served to clarify information for the jury and maintain control over the trial (Gallo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 A.D.2d 345, 348), and any unfairness or prejudice arising therefrom was in any event dissipated by proper curative instructions (Thoda v. Arcoleo, 179 A.D.2d 508). There is no merit to defendants' argument that they were deprived of a fair trial by a charge weighted in plaintiff's favor. We have reviewed defendants' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.