Plant Planners, Inc. v. Pollock
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- D.S. Magazines, Inc. v. Warner Publisher Services Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
- Casandra Properties, Inc. v. M.S.B. Development Co. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2011)
- JEFF CONIBER, DOING BUSINESS AS, JEFF CONIBER TRUCKING v. CENTER POINT TRANSFER STATION, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Coniber v. Center Point Transfer Station, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Coniber v. Center Point Transfer Station, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Special Situations Fund III, L.P. v. Versus Technology, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- C.K.S. Ice Cream Co. v. Frusen Gladje Franchise, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Lanes Floor Coverings, Inc. v. IBM Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Hirschfeld v. IC Securities, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Oneonta Dress Co. v. Ozona-Usa, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Kenford Co. v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Picciano v. Olympic Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), the judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.
Loss of the “entire profit”, as provided in the contract, is a proper measure of damages (Lieberman v Templar Motor Co., 236 NY 139, 149), and is recoverable where plaintiff has supplied some adequate basis for computing the amount, even where that amount cannot be precisely de
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.