Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock

• Decision Date: 25 October 1983
• Citation: Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock, 469 N.Y.S.2d 675, 60 N.Y.2d 779, 457 N.E.2d 781 (N.Y. 1983)
• Parties: , 457 N.E.2d 781 PLANT PLANNERS, INC., Respondent, v. Arnold POLLOCK, Defendant, and Sussex Holding Co., Inc., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 675

469 N.Y.S.2d 675

60 N.Y.2d 779, 457 N.E.2d 781

PLANT PLANNERS, INC., Respondent, v. Arnold POLLOCK, Defendant, and Sussex Holding Co., Inc., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 25, 1983.

[60 N.Y.2d 780] Jonathan L. Glaser, New York City, for appellant.

Philip Furgang, Spring Valley, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2[g] ), the judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division, 91 A.D.2d 1017, 457 N.Y.S.2d 890, brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

Loss of the "entire profit", as provided in the contract, is a proper measure of damages (Lieberman v. Templar Motor Co., 236 N.Y. 139, 149, 140 N.E. 222), and is recoverable where plaintiff has supplied some adequate basis for computing the amount, even where that amount cannot be precisely determined with absolute certainty (Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., 101 N.Y. 205, 210, 4 N.E. 264).

COOKE, C.J., and JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE, JJ., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2[g] ), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.