Case Name: DAVIS v. POLLAK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-04-14
Citations: 147 N.Y.S. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: DAVIS v. POLLAK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 147
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
DAVIS v. POLLAK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
April 14, 1914.)
Contracts (§ 322 )—Performance—Evidence.
Plaintiff’s bill for $250, for “plumbing as pier contract,” sent defendant, and defendant’s letter, returning the bill, and saying: “Inclosed * * * find check for $200. As L. promised to pay any amount above that sum * * * send bill for the difference to L., and send me the corrected bill” —is some evidence of performance of the work according to contract.
[Ed.' Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1306, 1307, 1339, 1347, 1348, 1465, 1492, 1534-1542, 1754, 1768, 1772, 1801, 1802, 1804-1808, 1815, 1816; Dec. Dig. § 322.*]
Lehman, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Samuel A. Davis against William Poliak (and others not summoned). Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Poliak appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued January term, 1914, before LEHMAN, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.
Gustav Lange, Jr., of New York City (James T. Brady, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Abraham Greenberg, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § kumbbr in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BIJUR, J.
The record sufficiently shows that plaintiff performed his agreement according to the plans and specifications which he testified were modified from time to time as the work progressed. Moreover, as to a number of alleged defects, he showed that they were in the work of other contractors, such as the carpenter, with whom he had nothing to do. There is certainly no testimony tendered by the defendant sufficient to overcome in this regard the force of plaintiff's Exhibit A, which was a bill for $250 for "plumbing as per contract." Defendant returned this bill to plaintiff with the following indorsement:
"Inclosed please find check for $200, as Mr. London [another defendant] promised to pay any amount above that sum himself, kindly send bill for the difference to London and Martin, and send me the corrected bill. Yours truly, William Poliak."
I see no reason for disturbing the conclusions as to the facts arrived at by the learned judge below.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
PAGE, J., concurs.