Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0038-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 175-33 HORACE HARDING REALTY CORP., Defendant-Appellant.
    
    16-3632-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    September 6, 2017
    Appearing for Appellant: Kenneth L. Robinson, Robinson & Associates, P.C., Syosett, N.Y.
    Appearing for Appellee: Henry F. Reichner, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
    
      Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
      
      . The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.
    
    
      
      . Judge Brian M. Cogan, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

175-33 Horace Harding Realty Corp. (“Horace Harding”) appeals from the September 30, 2016 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Seybert, J.) awarding Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) $1,294,416.75 on its breach of contract claim. The district court granted Sunoco partial summary judgment finding Horace Harding liable for breach of contract in a September 4, 2013 order, and subsequently determined damages for that breach in a bench trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo.” Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2001). “We review a district court’s bench trial findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo” Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 271 (2d Cir. 2003). “Factual findings should not be set aside unless they are without adequate support in the record, are against the clear weight of the evidence, or are the product of an erroneous view of the law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We affirm, primarily for the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinions of September 4, 2013 and May 27, 2015. In its summary judgment order, the district court correctly found no material dispute of fact as to Horace Harding’s liability for breach of contract, as the contract of sale bound the parties to the findings of the agreed-upon environmental consultant, whether or not the district court ultimately agreed with the consultant’s conclusions. The district court’s subsequent factual findings with respect to damages were well-supported by the record, and Horace Harding cannot meet its burden of demonstrating such findings are clearly erroneous. Horace Harding has also failed to identify any legal error.

We have considered the remainder of Horace Harding’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.