Holtzman v. Stutz

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Holtzman v. Stutz, 125 A.D.2d 640, 510 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
• Decision Date: 31 December 1986
• Parties: Edward HOLTZMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Werner R. STUTZ, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Helen Stutz, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Page 10

510 N.Y.S.2d 10

125 A.D.2d 640

Edward HOLTZMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Werner R. STUTZ, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Helen Stutz, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 31, 1986.

Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, White Plains (Carl Stahl, of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Joseph R. Press, Brooklyn, for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAZER, MANGANO and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to recover for necessaries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered November 4, 1985, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $27,360, without interest, after a nonjury trial.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified on the law and the facts, by reducing the award from $27,360 to $23,360. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff is a psychiatrist who allegedly furnished professional services to the defendant's wife. At the conclusion of the trial, the court awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $27,360. Making its findings from the bench, the court discussed the alternate theories of contract and necessaries but ultimately grounded its award on a contract theory. Nevertheless, the court did make the finding that the services rendered were necessaries and...