AD PRESS v. FEINER, CURTIS SMITH & GOLDMAN


88 Misc.2d 121 (1976)

Ad Press, Ltd., Appellant, v. Feiner, Curtis, Smith & Goldman, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

May 13, 1976


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Anderson Russell Hill & Olick, P. C. (James P. Heffernan of counsel), for appellant. Feiner, Chernis, Curtis & Goldman, respondent pro se.

Concur: MARKOWITZ, P. J., HUGHES and RICCOBONO, JJ.


Per Curiam.

In view of the finding by the court below, which is amply supported by the record, that defendant's liability for printing costs had been established, the judgment dismissing the complaint because of deficiencies in proof as to the extent of plaintiff's damages should not be permitted to stand and plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to supply the necessary proof on that issue. (See Haas v Wertheim, 266 App Div 672; Frenchman ...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases