From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v. Budnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 2005
19 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-01045.

June 6, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeney, J., on judgment; Hickman, J., at trial), entered January 22, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $63,144.48.

Brown Fox, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Ryan J. Whalen of counsel), for appellants.

Richard I. Goldsand, Brewster, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

If a jury charge is "ambiguous, inconsistent, erroneous, confusing, one-sided, incomplete or overly technical a new trial will be ordered if prejudice has resulted to any party" ( Smith v. Midwood Realty Assoc., 289 AD2d 391, 392 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] primary tenet of the doctrine of substantial performance is that the extent of recovery must be limited to reflect an adjustment for those items which were not duly performed" ( Pilgrim Homes Garages v. Fiore, 75 AD2d 846, 847; see Teramo Co. v. O'Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, 283 AD2d 635, 637). The charge given on this issue was erroneous, incomplete, and ambiguous. Consequently, since the defendants were prejudiced by the charge, a new trial is required ( see Witherspoon v. Columbia Univ., 7 AD3d 702, 703; Smith v. Midwood Realty Assoc., supra; Carefree Bldg. Prods. v. Belina, 169 AD2d 956, 957-958).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v. Budnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 2005
19 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v. Budnick

Case Details

Full title:MALONEY CARPENTRY, INC., Respondent, v. GEORGE BUDNICK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 6, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
795 N.Y.S.2d 911

Citing Cases

Supercool Co. RHVAC v. LaSalla

However, damages in a breach of contract action are intended to place the plaintiff in the same position it…

Supercool Co. RHVAC v. LaSalla

However, damages in a breach of contract action are intended to place the plaintiff in the same position it…