| Division Seven, Inc. v HP Bldrs. Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00499 [58 AD3d 796] |
| January 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Division Seven, Inc., Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v HPBuilders Corp. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Rabinowitz & Galina, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael P. Giampilis of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants HPBuilders Corp., Francis Lewis Realty, LLC, Clinco Realty Corp., and General AccidentInsurance Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 20, 2007, as, after a nonjury trial,dismissed the counterclaim asserted by the defendant HP Builders Corp. against the plaintiffDivision Seven, Inc.
Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Francis Lewis Realty, LLC, Clinco Realty Corp.,and General Accident Insurance Company is dismissed, as those defendants are not aggrieved bythe judgment appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant HP BuildersCorp.; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
At the nonjury trial, in support of its counterclaim against the plaintiff Division Seven, Inc.(hereinafter DSI), the defendant HP Builders Corp. (hereinafter HP), attempted to introduce intoevidence invoices purportedly establishing damages it sustained as a result of DSI's allegedbreach of contract. DSI objected, and the Supreme Court sustained the objection. On appeal, HPcontends that the Supreme Court erred in precluding the invoices. In light of the lack of anyevidence in the [*2]record to indicate that DSI was contractuallybound to perform the work which was the subject of HP's counterclaim, any error the SupremeCourt may have committed in refusing to admit the invoices into evidence was harmless, as thereis no indication that the evidence would have had a substantial influence on the result of the trial(see CPLR 2002; Milone v Milone, 266 AD2d 363, 363-364 [1999]; Walkerv State of New York, 111 AD2d 164, 165 [1985]).
The remaining contentions of HP and DSI either are not properly before us, are withoutmerit, or need not be reached in light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Chambers, JJ., concur.