Opinion
2002-09939.
Decided January 26, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), entered August 20, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant Samer Tawfik liable for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, is in their favor and against the defendant Samer Tawfik in the principal sum of only $24,000.
Hughes Hubbard Reed, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel H. Weiner, Seth D. Rothman, and Amera Z. Chowhan of counsel), for appellants.
Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John R. Goldman, Darlene Fairman, and Patrick E. Fitzmaurice of counsel), for respondent.
Before: WILLIAM F. MASTRO and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Supreme Court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the defendant Samer Tawfik breached the subject contract in 1995 ( see CPLR 4401; Held v. Kaufman, 91 N.Y.2d 425, 431).
In addition, the Supreme Court properly limited the plaintiffs to a contract measure of damages ( see Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Enco Assoc., 43 N.Y.2d 389; Baratta v. Kozlowski, 94 A.D.2d 454). The Supreme Court also properly found that punitive damages were not appropriate ( see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308; Kelly v. Defoe Corp., 223 A.D.2d 529).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, they were not precluded from presenting competent evidence of the value of the subject corporation during the damages phase of the trial ( see Terpenning v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 43 N.Y. 279).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.