Wenger v. Alidad
Decision Date | 04 October 1999 |
Citation | 265 AD2d 322,696 N.Y.S.2d 227 |
Parties | Leslie WENGER, et al., appellants, v. Wali ALIDAD, et al., respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert C. Agee, White Plains, N.Y., for appellants.
Bloom & Bloom, P.C., New Windsor, N.Y. (Daniel J. Bloom of counsel), for respondent Wali Alidad.
Martin R. Goldberg, Middletown, N.Y., for respondent Lee Hagler.
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a shareholder's derivative action, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), dated April 20, 1998, as, after a nonjury trial, (a) dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Wali Alidad, Barbara Alidad, Roger Budrow, and Ellen Budrow, and (b) is in favor of the defendant Wali Alidad and against the plaintiff Leslie Wenger on his counterclaim, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered May 4, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Lee Hagler dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the defendants Wali Alidad and Lee Hagler are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiffs.
Although the plaintiffs established a prima facie case against the defendants Wali Alidad and Lee Hagler (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145), their contention that the court erred in dismissing their action against Alidad and Hagler is without merit. The evidence did not so preponderate in the plaintiffs' favor that they were entitled to judgment upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163; Panzarino v. Carella, 247 A.D.2d 521, 669 N.Y.S.2d 301).
The Supreme Court incorrectly awarded judgment to Alidad on his counterclaim against the plaintiff Leslie Wenger. While breach of contract damages are intended to place a party in the same position as he or she would have been in if the contract had not been breached, "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial