Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David Cohen, et al., respondents, v Georges Cohen, appellant.
Submitted—October 24, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered June 9, 2010, as, upon a decision of the same court dated April 9, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him on the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment in the principal sum of $42,998.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by reducing the award from the principal sum of $42,998 to the principal sum of $27,296.88; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
After a nonjury trial, this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts and a review of the record as a whole (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499; Intercounty Supply, Inc. v TAP Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 60 AD3d 907; We're Assoc. Co. v. Rodin Sportswear, 288 A.D.2d 465; Ancewicz v. Western Suffolk BOCES, 282 A.D.2d 632). In this case, the trial court miscalculated the damages to which the plaintiffs established entitlement. Upon review of the record, we find that the total damages awarded to the plaintiffs should be reduced from the principal sum of $42,998 to the principal sum of $27,296.88.
The appellant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–06881 (Index No. 23080 /07)
Decided: November 15, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)