Cambridge Associates v. Town of North Salem

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation724 N.Y.S.2d 319,282 A.D.2d 702
Decision Date30 April 2001
PartiesCAMBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>TOWN OF NORTH SALEM, Respondent.

282 A.D.2d 702
724 N.Y.S.2d 319

CAMBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF NORTH SALEM, Respondent.

Decided April 30, 2001.


Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must determine from the evidence presented at trial whether any rational basis exists for the conclusion reached by the jury (see, CPLR 4404 [a]; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). Moreover, the test is not whether the jury erred in weighing the evidence but rather, whether there is any viable evidence to support the verdict (see, Matter of Tokarz, 199 AD2d 400). Here, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that the plaintiff's loss of rental income was caused by the breach of the defendant's stipulation of settlement to provide a permanent water supply to the property by a certain date (see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 73 NY2d 312; Kasem v Phillip Morris USA, 244 AD2d 532). The evidence showing that the property suffered from a high vacancy rate, and the evidence as to what the property could have earned had it been rented, was speculative (see, Lloyd v Town of Wheatfield, 67 NY2d 809). Similarly, the extraordinary expenses resulting from the defendant's delay in performance and the lost opportunity to sell the property were so remote and unforeseeable as not to be in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was signed. Thus, the court properly declined to submit the claim for those expenses to the jury (see, Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict and directed judgment as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Tuchman v. Deam Props. (Us), LLC, Index No. 101056/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 25 Abril 2014
    ...PC, 91 A.D.3d 473, 474 (1st Dep't 2012); Pope v. Saget, 29 A.D.3d 437, 442 (1st Dep't 2006); Cambridge Assoc. v. Town of N. Salem,Page 7282 A.D.2d 702 (2d Dep't 2001); Soule v. Soule, 252 A.D.2d 768, 770-71 (3d Dep't 1998). See 30-40 E. Main St. Bayshore, Inc. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co.,......
  • Reitzel v. Hale, No. 28224/2001.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 Abril 2013
    ...weighing the evidence presented, but whether any viable evidence exists to support the verdict (Cambridge Assocs. v. Town of North Salem, 282 A.D.2d 702 [2d Dept 2001]; 370 Hamilton Ave. Corp. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 517 [2d Dept 1999]; Matter of Tokarz, 199 A.D.2d 4......
  • Board of Managers of Dickerson Pond Condominium v. Jagwani
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 30 Abril 2001
    ...that the plaintiffs were not obligated to repair the roof because the unit, as a whole, was not substantially completed. We disagree. [282 A.D.2d 702] Based on the record before us, we find that the roof was, in fact, substantially completed (see, Emmi v State of New York, 143 AD2d 876). Ac......
3 cases
  • Tuchman v. Deam Props. (Us), LLC, Index No. 101056/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 25 Abril 2014
    ...PC, 91 A.D.3d 473, 474 (1st Dep't 2012); Pope v. Saget, 29 A.D.3d 437, 442 (1st Dep't 2006); Cambridge Assoc. v. Town of N. Salem,Page 7282 A.D.2d 702 (2d Dep't 2001); Soule v. Soule, 252 A.D.2d 768, 770-71 (3d Dep't 1998). See 30-40 E. Main St. Bayshore, Inc. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co.,......
  • Reitzel v. Hale, No. 28224/2001.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 Abril 2013
    ...weighing the evidence presented, but whether any viable evidence exists to support the verdict (Cambridge Assocs. v. Town of North Salem, 282 A.D.2d 702 [2d Dept 2001]; 370 Hamilton Ave. Corp. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 517 [2d Dept 1999]; Matter of Tokarz, 199 A.D.2d 4......
  • Board of Managers of Dickerson Pond Condominium v. Jagwani
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 30 Abril 2001
    ...that the plaintiffs were not obligated to repair the roof because the unit, as a whole, was not substantially completed. We disagree. [282 A.D.2d 702] Based on the record before us, we find that the roof was, in fact, substantially completed (see, Emmi v State of New York, 143 AD2d 876). Ac......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT