Contracts · MBE-tested
William L. Buchwald, Appellant, v. Jay F. Waldron, Respondent
174 A.D.2d 895·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1991·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William L. Buchwald, Appellant, v Jay F. Waldron, Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered May 10, 1990 in Warren County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s only contention on appeal is that, based on the evidence presented at the nonjury trial, Supreme Court’s award of $300 in damages for defendant’s breach of contract was inadequate. Supreme Court has failed to indicate the rationale and factual basis for its determination of damages (see, CPLR 4213 [b]), thereby precluding effective appellate review. Consequently, we must remit for a detailed finding as to how the court arrived at its calculation of damages (see, Woodruff v Castaldo, 110 AD2d 1040, 1041-1042; Novak & Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 109 AD2d 1013, 1014).
Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision.