You are here: / / ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED...
,

ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants, one of which was found by the jury to have breached a contract, and the other which was found to have tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s prospective business relations, should not have been deemed jointly and severally liable. Each was separately liable for the separate damage-amounts assigned by the jury:

The jury determined that the plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $60,000 resulting from [defendant] DIG’s interference with the plaintiff’s prospective business relationship with [defendant] B1 Advanced, and that the plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $657,000 resulting from B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the damages arising out of DIG’s tortious interference could, in fact, differ from the damages arising out of B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. The jury assessed the amount of damages against DIG based on the plaintiff’s loss of prospective profits resulting from DIG’s tortious interference with the plaintiff’s ongoing business relationship with B1 Advanced … . Conversely, “[d]amages for breach of contract include general (or direct) damages, which compensate for the value of the promised performance, and consequential damages, which are indirect and compensate for additional losses incurred as a result of the breach, such as lost profits” … . The jury’s apportionment of damages reflects its finding that DIG was not responsible for all of the damages caused by B1 Advanced’s breach of contract. Achieve It Solutions, LLC v Lewis, 2020 NY Slip Op 04137, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
Action Based Upon Misclassification of Property Must Be Brought Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law
Out of State Visitation for All School Breaks and Three-Day Weekends (In Addition To Summers) Should Not Have Been Granted
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWAIK ICE-AND-SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
Written Waiver of Conflict by Defendants Precluded Disqualification of Plaintiff’s Counsel
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK... THE CITY NEED NOT PROVE THE POLICE CORROBORATED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT...