Opinion
November 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
In this action seeking damages alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit and fraud with respect to compensation pursuant to two letter agreements concerning plaintiff's role in certain financing transactions, there existed a jury question as to the scope of and extent to which each party was required to act pursuant to each agreement.
The court properly charged the jury with respect to plaintiff's burden of proof (see, Creighton v. Milbauer, 191 A.D.2d 162, 165), and the rights and obligations of defendant not to frustrate or prevent the occurrence of a condition precedent to plaintiff's performance of the contract by failing to advise him of certain financings (see, Cauff, Lippman Co. v. Apogee Fin. Group, 807 F. Supp. 1007, 1022). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the prevailing party, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences upon which a rational jury could find defendant liable to plaintiff, under both agreements (see, Baker v. Turner Constr. Co., 200 A.D.2d 525, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 755). Defendant fails to demonstrate that the jury's finding that no settlement had occurred was unsupported by any valid and reasonable view of the evidence presented. Nor is there any basis to overturn the jury's assessment of damages (see, Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v. Clowes, 224 A.D.2d 312).
Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.