Schaffer v. View at Dobbs, LLC

• Decision Date: 11 October 2019
• Docket Number: 2017-741 W C
• Citation: 65 Misc.3d 133 (A),118 N.Y.S.3d 921 (Table)
• Parties: Benjamin SCHAFFER, Appellant, v. The VIEW AT DOBBS, LLC, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

65 Misc.3d 133 (A)

118 N.Y.S.3d 921 (Table)

Benjamin SCHAFFER, Appellant,

v.The VIEW AT DOBBS, LLC, Respondent.

2017-741 W C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

Decided on October 11, 2019

Benjamin Schaffer, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Romano, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).

PRESENT: THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the June 20, 2016 oral decision is deemed a notice of appeal from the judgment incorrectly marked as having been entered on May 4, 2016 (see CPLR 5520 [c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action commenced in October 2014 to recover the sum of $8,122.40 based on a breach of a contract for architectural services and on an account stated, defendant's answer denied the complaint's allegations. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff, a licensed architect, testified that defendant owned a piece of property and plaintiff, acting as an architect-developer, had done some drawings on the property for various developers. When none of the developers proceeded with the project plaintiff had proposed, defendant's principals, Leslie Cohen and Doug Austrian, whom plaintiff had met in 2013, considered using plaintiff to draw up design drawings. In March 2014, there was an email exchange between plaintiff and one of defendant's principals wherein plaintiff wrote that, upon defendant's approval of design drawings, defendant was to pay him $10,000. One of the principals responded, "Ok you have a deal we would like preliminary as soon as possible." In April 2014, plaintiff presented "drawings" to the principals and requested the money. The principals gave plaintiff a $2,000 check. While there had been drawings prepared for previous developers, some changes had been made to them, including the number and sizes of the apartments that would be included in the proposed building. Plaintiff testified that he thereafter had spent about four hours making additional changes requested by the principals. By May of 2014, plaintiff had been informed that defendant was in negotiations to sell the property and was not going to proceed with the development. Consequently, plaintiff sought to recover the $8,000 balance due, plus $122.40 in reimbursable expenses. Leslie Cohen testified for defendant that the parties had never met again after the April 2014 meeting, no design drawings had ever been approved, the designs presented at trial by plaintiff were not good enough to get approval and the property had been sold in June 2014. Cohen did not hear from plaintiff again after the initial meeting. Following the trial, the City Court dismissed the action, finding that there had been no contract entered into.

Contrary to the City Court's finding, the emails exchanged between the parties created a valid contract (see Forcelli v Geico Corp. , 109 AD3d 244 [2013] ). Nevertheless, the record supports the determination of the City Court, based upon its assessment of...