Crippen v. Adamao

• Decision Date: 31 October 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–08243,Index No. 9543/10
• Citation: 87 N.Y.S.3d 608,165 A.D.3d 1227
• Parties: Janice CRIPPEN, Respondent-Appellant, v. M. ADAMAO, et al., Appellants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

165 A.D.3d 1227

87 N.Y.S.3d 608

Janice CRIPPEN, Respondent-Appellant,

v.M. ADAMAO, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

2016–08243

Index No. 9543/10

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—May 29, 2018

October 31, 2018

Thomas D. Czik, Roslyn, NY, for appellants-respondents.

Victor M. Serby, Woodmere, NY, for respondent-appellant.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Antonio I. Brandveen, J.), entered June 24, 2016. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court dated April 15, 2016, granting that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial motion which was for a statutory penalty in the sum of $500 pursuant to General Business Law § 772, and granting that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial motion which was for an award of statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772 to the extent of awarding her statutory counsel fees in the sum of $56,141.58, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sums of $9,358.96 for breach of contract, $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, $100,000 in punitive damages, $500 as a statutory penalty pursuant to General Business Law § 772, and $56,141.58 in statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772. The judgment, insofar as cross-appealed from, awarded the plaintiff statutory counsel fees in the principal sum of only $56,141.58.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof awarding the plaintiff the sums of $9,358.96 for breach of contract, $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, $100,000 in punitive damages, and $56,141.58 in statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772 ; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, so much of the order dated April 15, 2016, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial motion which was for an award of statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772 to the extent of awarding her statutory counsel fees in the sum of $56,141.58 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination of that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial motion which was for an award of statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772 in light of our determination, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

In December 2006, the plaintiff entered into a written home improvement contract with the defendant Matthew L. Adamo, a home improvement contractor doing business as the defendant M. Adamo—Designs, Renovations & Construction, incorrectly sued herein as M. Adamao, in which the defendants agreed, among other things, to renovate a bathroom in the plaintiff's home. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the plaintiff made installment payments to the defendants as the work progressed. However, a dispute arose over the quality and manner of the work performed, and the defendants ultimately ceased work on the project. Although the contract stated that the defendants were licensed to perform home improvement work, the plaintiff subsequently discovered that the defendants' home improvement license was suspended when the contract was executed. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, breach of contract based on defective construction and violation of General Business Law § 772 for fraudulently inducing the plaintiff to enter into the home improvement contract premised upon the false representation in the contract that the defendants held a valid home improvement license. After a trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff the sums of $9,358.96 for breach of contract, $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, and $100,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiff then made a posttrial motion for an award of a statutory penalty in the sum of $500 pursuant to General Business Law § 772, and an award of statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772. In an order dated April 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial motion which was for an award of a statutory penalty in the sum of $500, and granted that branch of the motion which was for an award of statutory counsel fees pursuant to General Business Law § 772 to the extent of awarding the plaintiff statutory counsel fees in the sum of $56,141.58. The defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from the judgment entered upon the jury verdict and the order.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have rationally concluded that the defendants breached the subject home improvement contract (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ; Europal Home Improvement Corp. v. Giushuddin, 127 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 7 N.Y.S.3d 901 ). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, the verdict...