From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson Clayton Co. v. Alanthus Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 1983
91 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

January 10, 1983


In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated April 29, 1982, as denied the branch of its motion which was for partial summary judgment as against defendant Alanthus Corporation, and said defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision denying that branch of plaintiff's motion which was for partial summary judgment against defendant Alanthus Corporation and substituting a provision granting said branch of the motion. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Although the issue of substantial performance is usually one of fact, "if the inferences are certain, the question involves only a matter of law and is to be decided by the court" (22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts, § 320, pp 198-199; see Jacob Youngs v Kent, 230 N.Y. 239, mot for rearg den 230 N.Y. 656; see, also, Travelers Ind. Co. v Buffalo Motor Generator Corp., 58 A.D.2d 978). At bar, the primary purpose of the contract was fulfilled. The breaches alleged by defendant Alanthus are trivial in nature, particularly when contrasted with the substantial performance tendered by plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the contract. Further, plaintiff continually proceeded with the utmost good faith. In such a situation, the nonbreaching party is not excused from its obligations under the contract (see Jacob Youngs v Kent, supra; Le Cordon Bleu v BPC Pub., 451 F. Supp. 63; 22 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts, §§ 315-318). Consequently, Special Term erred in denying the branch of plaintiff's motion which was for partial summary judgment as against defendant Alanthus. We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant Alanthus and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Anderson Clayton Co. v. Alanthus Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 1983
91 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Anderson Clayton Co. v. Alanthus Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ANDERSON CLAYTON CO., Appellant-Respondent, v. ALANTHUS CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 10, 1983

Citations

91 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Women's Interart Ctr., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Econ. Dev. Corp.

See also, F. Garofalo Elec. Co. v New York Univ., 300 AD2d 186, 189 (1st Dept 2002) ("The question of whether…

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC v. Sub-Technical, Inc.

"The issue of whether a party has substantially performed is usually a question of fact and should be decided…