Case ID: nys_26/html/0761-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CLEMENT, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(6 Misc. Rep. 259.)
    SPINRAD v. FINELITE et al.
    (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
    December 26, 1893.)
    Account Rendered—Modification.
    Where plaintiff, after completing work for defendant, and presenting his bill, itemized the bill, and increased the amount, his recovery will be limited to the amount of the original bill, the increase not being explained, and there being no evidence of mistake in the original bill
    .Appeal from trial term.
    
      Action by Hyman Spinrad against David Finelite and Philip Beecher and another for services rendered. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff and of defendants Beecher and another, defendant Finelite appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before CLEMENT, C. J., and VAN WYCK, J.
    George W. Stephens, for appellant.
    Alex. S. Rosenthal, for respondent Spinrad.
   CLEMENT, C. J.

There is no question of law involved on this appeal, and the amount in dispute does not justify a discussion of the facts. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the printed record, and conclude that the judgment below is not against the evidence, except in one respect. It appears that the plaintiff rendered a bill to Mr. Finelite, after the work was completed, for $215, and that plaintiff afterwards itemized it, and increased it to-$289.50. No explanation is given why the bill was made larger, and there is no testimony on his part tending to show a mistake in rendering the original bill. The judgment in favor of the respondent Spinrad must be modified by reducing his claim to the amount of the bill as rendered.

Judgment in favor of respondent Spinrad modified by deducting the sum of $73, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Judgment, in favor of respondents Beecher and another affirmed, without costs.

VAN WYCK, J., concurs.