| Campos v Ofman |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01907 [49 AD3d 485] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Martin Campos, Respondent, v Mendel Ofman,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated April 28, 2006, which,upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability and an oral stipulation of the parties as to the amountof damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $51,100.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff alleged that the parties orally agreed that he would renovate several apartmentsin a building owned by the defendant in exchange for payment in the sum of $7,000 perapartment. Pursuant to this agreement, the plaintiff renovated nine of the defendant's apartmentsand, not having been fully compensated, commenced this action to recover damages for breach ofcontract. The defendant disputed that he had entered into such a contract, contending that he hadinformally engaged the plaintiff as a helper to assist him in renovating the apartments, for whichservices the plaintiff had been fully compensated. The jury concluded that a contract, asdescribed by the plaintiff, existed between the parties and that the plaintiff had, in fact, renovatednine of the defendant's apartments. After the verdict was rendered, the parties stipulated to theamount of damages.
The defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiffrenovated nine apartments is without merit. In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence,we "must determine whether there is any 'valid line of reasoning and permissible inferenceswhich could possibly lead a rational [person] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis ofthe evidence presented at trial' " (Schwalb v Kulaski, 38 AD3d 876, 877 [2007], quoting Cohen vHallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the plaintiff, as we must (see [*2]Campbell v Cityof Elmira, 84 NY2d 505, 509 [1994]; Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 464[1984]; Tribuzio v City of NewYork, 15 AD3d 646, 647 [2005]), we find that a valid line of reasoning and permissibleinferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury here. Moreover, theverdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Admae Enters. vSmith, 222 AD2d 471, 471-472 [1995]; Gonzalez v Chalpin, 159 AD2d 553,554-555 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 74 [1990]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132[1985]).
Further, the defendant's contention that the contract was unenforceable pursuant to New YorkCity Administrative Code § 20-387 is raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, isnot properly before this Court (seeGlaser v County of Orange, 22 AD3d 720, 721 [2005]; Bragagnolo v EMC Mtge.Corp., 234 AD2d 328 [1996]; Matter of Dowsett v Dowsett, 172 AD2d 610, 611[1991]).
The defendant is not entitled to review of his contention that the amount of damages awardedwas inadequate since he stipulated to that amount (see CPLR 5511; Bell v New YorkCity Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 770 [2006]; Plotkin v New York City Health & Hosps.Corp., 88 NY2d 917 [1996]; Sharrow v Dick Corp., 84 NY2d 976 [1994]).
To the extent that the defendant raises issues regarding certain orders of the Supreme Courtdated February 3, 2003, July 20, 2004, November 9, 2005, and January 11, 2005 (seeCPLR 5501 [a]), meaningful appellate review of these orders is impossible because of theincomplete record submitted (see CPLR 5526; Salem v Mott, 43 AD3d 397 [2007]; Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39AD3d 689 [2007]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]),and we do not reach these contentions. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.