Opinion
2012-12-21
TY ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Raymond DELMONTE, Defendant–Appellant.
Michael J. Crosby, Honeoye Falls, for Defendant–Appellant. Gates & Adams, P.C., Rochester (Max G. Kinsky of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Michael J. Crosby, Honeoye Falls, for Defendant–Appellant. Gates & Adams, P.C., Rochester (Max G. Kinsky of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff, an electrical contractor, commenced this action in City Court to recover the sum due on unpaid bills in connection with work performed at defendant's home. On a theory of quantum meruit, City Court awarded plaintiff $7,681.98 plus disbursements, statutory costs, and statutory interest. Defendant appealed to County Court, which affirmed the order of City Court.
Defendant contends that City Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to UCCA 202 because quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine. Under the circumstances of this case, we reject that contention. “Generally, the determinant as to whether a claim is at law or at equity is the nature of the relief which, under the facts alleged, could fairly compensate the party bringing the claim ... If money damages alone could achieve that end, the action is generally at law” ( Hudson View II Assoc. v. Gooden, 222 A.D.2d 163, 168, 644 N.Y.S.2d 512). In this case, plaintiff sought only money damages on the theory of quantum meruit, as compensation for the work performed. Thus, we conclude that City Court had subject matter jurisdiction. Contrary to defendant's further contention, plaintiff met its burden of establishing the reasonable value of its services ( see Crane–Hogan Structural Sys., Inc. v. State of New York, 88 A.D.3d 1258, 1260, 930 N.Y.S.2d 713). “In construction contract cases, ‘[t]he customary method of calculating damages on a [quantum meruit] basis ... is actual job costs plus an allowance for overhead and profits minus amounts paid’ ” ( id., quoting Najjar Indus. v. City of New York, 87 A.D.2d 329, 331–332, 451 N.Y.S.2d 410,affd.68 N.Y.2d 943, 510 N.Y.S.2d 82, 502 N.E.2d 997;see Whitmyer Bros. v. State of New York, 47 N.Y.2d 960, 962, 419 N.Y.S.2d 954, 393 N.E.2d 1027), and plaintiff established that amount.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.