From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Callanan Industries, Inc. v. Smiroldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 29, 1984
100 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

March 29, 1984

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Conway, J.), entered July 6, 1983 in Albany County, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.


¶ Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action to recover $2,500 for services allegedly rendered in repairing defendant's driveway, as provided for in the agreement between the parties. Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted a counterclaim to recover $1,100 for repairs to the driveway which will allegedly have to be made due to plaintiff's failure to perform the work in a good and workmanlike manner. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, contending that defendant's counterclaim for $1,100 established plaintiff's claim to the extent of $1,400, the difference between plaintiff's claim and alleged cost of repairs to the driveway. Special Term denied plaintiff's motion, concluding that issues of fact as to plaintiff's performance existed. This appeal followed and we affirm. ¶ Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant's counterclaim does not establish that plaintiff substantially performed the contract and, therefore, is entitled to damages. The theory of substantial performance permits recovery on a contract only where the failure of performance is relatively slight and occurs in good faith (see, e.g., 22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts, § 317, p. 195). The record herein reveals that defendant has presented proof, in affidavit and other form, to establish that plaintiff's performance was so inadequate as to constitute a breach, which would prevent plaintiff from any recovery on the contract. Defendant's assertion of a counterclaim does not negate this possibility. Accordingly, the issue of plaintiff's performance presents factual questions which require a trial and Special Term properly denied plaintiff's motion. ¶ Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J.P., Main, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Callanan Industries, Inc. v. Smiroldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 29, 1984
100 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Callanan Industries, Inc. v. Smiroldo

Case Details

Full title:CALLANAN INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. CHARLES SMIROLDO, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 29, 1984

Citations

100 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Lapenna Contracting, LTD v. Mullen

(see Island Wide Heating & A.C. v Sachs, 189 Misc.2d 355 [App Term 2d 2001]). "A contractor can recover on a…

Trataros Construction, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority

We decline to disturb this finding on appeal ( see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Northern…