Dolezel v. Fialkoff

• Decision Date: 16 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 2,No. 3,1,2,3
• Citation: 151 N.Y.S.2d 734,2 A.D.2d 642
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Lillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v. Samuel FIALKOFF, Appellant. ActionLillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v. Leonard FIALKOFF and Samuel Fialkoff, Appellants. ActionLillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v. Leonard FIALKOFF and Samuel Fialkoff, Appellants.

Page 734

151 N.Y.S.2d 734

2 A.D.2d 642

Lillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v.Samuel FIALKOFF, Appellant.

Action No. 1 Lillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v.Leonard FIALKOFF and Samuel Fialkoff, Appellants.

Action No. 2 Lillian DOLEZEL, Respondent, v.Leonard FIALKOFF and Samuel Fialkoff, Appellants.

Action No. 3 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

May 16, 1956.

Maurice Freedman, Albany, for appellants.

Charles L. Drake, Albany, for respondent.

Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and ZELLER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from judgments in three separate actions entered in favor of the plaintiff in each case upon the decision of an Official Referee.

In ActionNo. 1, the plaintiff recovered a judgment of $750, with interest, against the defendant for the failure of the latter to properly perform a contract for the repair and remodeling of the second story of the plaintiff's house.This action involves only questions of fact and we think the proof fairly sustains the decision of the Official Referee.Judgment in this case affirmed, without costs.

In ActionNo. 2, the Official Referee found that the defendants failed to perform their contract with the plaintiff for grading and seeding the lawn as provided in the contract of sale between the parties.This action also involved only questions of fact and we find no impelling reason for disturbing the decision of the Official Referee.This judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In ActionNo. 3 the Official Referee found the plaintiff entitled to recover the sum of $500 for the alleged failure of the defendants to properly construct and waterproof the cellar of the house sold to the plaintiff.This action was brought upon the theory of implied warranty.It was claimed that there...