Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Elkin v. Urarn Associates

April 13, 2010

ALAN S. ELKIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS,
v.
URARN ASSOCIATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Urarn Associates, U.S.A. Construction Corp., Uri Sasson, and Arnold Garelick, appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Hughs, R.), entered November 14, 2008, which, upon, inter alia, a decision of the same court dated June 6, 2008, made after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Urarn Associates, Uri Sasson, and Arnold Garelick in the principal sum of $140,600.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

(Index No. 4832/04)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant U.S.A. Construction Corp. is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as it is not aggrieved by the judgment appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiffs the principal sum of $140,600, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiffs the principal sum of $54,500; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

In October 2000 the plaintiff Alan Elkin (hereinafter Elkin) entered into a written contract with the defendant Urarn Associates (hereinafter Urarn) pursuant to which Elkin agreed to purchase from Urarn a vacant lot located in Rockland County, designated as "Lot 7" on a certain subdivision map. The defendants Uri Sasson and Arnold Garelick are Urarn's partners.

Insofar as relevant to this appeal, paragraph 31 of the contract provides as follows: "PRIVATE ROAD. Seller agrees to complete the private road (i.e. Sky Drive and Wood Lane), except the wearing course shall be completed after all the construction on all the lots is finished at Seller's sole cost and expense. Seller shall comply with the Town's requirements for any escrow for the completion of the wearing course. The Seller's obligations as to the foregoing is for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to the within roads and to install the utilities in said road at Seller's sole cost and expense for the purpose of servicing the lots which are sewer, water, gas, electric and telephone. This clause shall survive delivery of the deed." The phrases "at Seller's sole cost and expense," and "[t]his clause shall survive delivery of the deed," are handwritten into the contract, and resulted from negotiations during the closing.

Lot 7, now known as "14 Sky Drive, New City, New York," is shaped like a rectangular flag on top of a flag pole. In or around July 2002, the plaintiffs began constructing a house for themselves on the flattest part of the "flag" portion of Lot 7.

Sometime in the 1980s, the appellants had a water main installed in Sky Drive with a service connection for Lot 7. In August 2003, while construction of the plaintiffs' house on Lot 7 was underway, the Rockland County Department of Health (hereinafter the Rockland County DOH) and the local water company informed the plaintiffs that, due to inadequate water pressure, the water main in Sky Drive could not service Lot 7 with water. Thereafter, in the Fall of 2003, Elkin, the individual defendants, and representatives of the Rockland County DOH and the local water company met to discuss potential solutions to the water supply problem. Ultimately, the plaintiffs paid for the installation of a water supply system at Lot 7 that included a water pressure booster system that enabled the water main in Sky Drive to service Lot 7 with water.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract. The parties stipulated to have a referee hear and determine the case. After conducting a non-jury trial, the referee determined that Urarn breached its obligation under paragraph 31 of the contract to install utilities in Sky Drive for the purpose of servicing Lot 7 with water, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages from the defendants Urarn, Sasson, and Garelick in the principal sum of $140,600.

As this case was tried without a jury, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render a judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Hoffinger Indus. Inc. v Alabama Ave. Realty, Inc., 68 AD3d 818, 820; Matter of Verdeschi, 63 AD3d 1084, 1085). We find that an award of damages only in the principal sum of $54,500 is warranted by the facts.

Initially, contrary to the defendants' contention, the evidence supports the referee's determination that Urarn breached the contract. By its plain language, paragraph 31 of the contract obligated Urarn to install utilities in Sky Drive for the purpose of servicing Lot 7 with water--not, as the appellants' claim, simply to install utilities in Sky Drive without regard to whether those utilities could, in fact, service Lot 7 with water. In that respect, while the evidence demonstrated that sometime in the 1980s the appellants had a water main installed in Sky Drive with a service connection for Lot 7, the evidence further demonstrated that, due to inadequate water pressure, the water main in Sky Drive could not service Lot 7 with water without the installation of some type of water pressure booster system, which Urarn failed to install. Under these circumstances, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.