Legal Opinion
Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 25, 1983PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), the judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.
Loss of the “entire profit”, as provided in the contract, is a proper measure of damages (Lieberman v Templar Motor Co., 236 NY 139, 149), and is recoverable where plaintiff has supplied some adequate basis for computing the amount, even where that amount cannot be precisely de*781termined with absolute certainty (Wakeman v Wheeler &…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Lieberman v. . Templar Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kenford Co. v. County of ErieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Hirschfeld v. IC Securities, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- C.K.S. Ice Cream Co. v. Frusen Gladje Franchise, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Oneonta Dress Co. v. Ozona-Usa, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- D.S. Magazines, Inc. v. Warner Publisher Services Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.