Reizen v. Steiglitz
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1Concurrence
Bijur, J.:
I concur fully in the conclusion reached by my colleagues but believe that plaintiff is entitled also to recover all his expenditures in the premises on the ground that they were disbursements necessarily incurred by him in preparing to carry out the contract which result was prevented by defendants’ breach. (Bernstein v. Meech, 130 N. Y. 354; Friedland v. Myers, 139 id. 432; Nelson v. Hatch, 70 App. Div. 206; affd., 174 N. Y. 546; Reed v. McConnell, 62 Hun, 153; Abbey v. Mace, 19 N. Y. Supp. 375; affd., 141 N. Y. 574, on opinion below; Burkhard v. Morris, 206 App. Div. 366.)
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bernstein v. . MeechNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Nelson v. HatchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Abbey v. MaceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Burkhard v. MorrisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Nelson v. . HatchNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.