Ferreira v. Saccento
Decision Date | 13 August 2001 |
Citation | 729 N.Y.S.2d 178,286 A.D.2d 366 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | LOUIS A. FERREIRA, Doing Business as FERREIRA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ROCCO A. SACCENTO et al., Appellants. |
Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from a decision of the same court entered May 16, 2000, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated February 27, 2001 (see, CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined the damages awarded for breach of contract, willful exaggeration of the mechanic's lien, and a reasonable attorney's fee incurred in discharging the willfully-exaggerated mechanic's lien. In an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract, the proper measure of damages is the "fair and reasonable market price for correcting the defective installation [or completing the construction]" (Kaufman v Le Curt Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 577, 578). The Supreme Court properly excluded from the measure of damages that portion of expenses incurred for work and/or materials which were not required under the contract. With regard to the willfully-exaggerated mechanic's lien, the defendants contend that the damages should be the amount by which the lien was overstated, an interpretation of Lien Law § 39-a which has been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeals (see, Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, 15 NY2d 191). The penalty to be imposed should be measured only by the amount found to have been willfully exaggerated (see, Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods, supra, at 194). Finally, the evidence adduced at the inquest on damages sufficiently supported the Supreme Court's determination as to the reasonable value of the legal services rendered (see, Piazza Bros. v Pound Ridge Bd. of Fire Commrs., 230 AD2d 837, 838).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewin v. Levine
...& G Indus., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 725, 726, 946 N.Y.S.2d 178 ; Marino v. Lewis, 17 A.D.3d 325, 325–326, 792 N.Y.S.2d 572 ; Ferreira v. Saccento, 286 A.D.2d 366, 729 N.Y.S.2d 178 ; Kaufman v. Le Curt Construction Corp., 196 A.D.2d 577, 578, 601 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; Lukoff v. Suzzex Downs, 131 A.D.2d 442......
-
Ng v. Neng
...509, 838 N.Y.S.2d 914;see also Bellizzi v. Huntley Estates, 3 N.Y.2d 112, 115, 164 N.Y.S.2d 395, 143 N.E.2d 802;Ferreira v. Saccento, 286 A.D.2d 366, 366, 729 N.Y.S.2d 178;Kaufman v. Le Curt Constr. Corp., 196 A.D.2d 577, 578, 601 N.Y.S.2d 186;Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 348). We de......
- Ferreira v. Saccento
- Esteves v. WE TRANSPORT, INC.
-
D. Contents of the Notice of Lien For A Private Improvement
...716 (3d Dep't 2017).[151] Barden & Robeson Corp. v. Czyz, 245 A.D.2d 599, 665 N.Y.S.2d 442 (3d Dep't 1997); see Ferreira v. Saccento, 286 A.D.2d 366, 729 N.Y.S.2d 178 (2d Dep't 2001) (mere overstating of proper amount of lien will not constitute a willful exaggeration. The penalty to be imp......