Case Name: Jack Heller, Respondent, v. Tri-Boro Enterprises, Inc., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1960-12-08
Citations: 28 Misc. 2d 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jack Heller, Respondent, v. Tri-Boro Enterprises, Inc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Jack Heller, Respondent, v. Tri-Boro Enterprises, Inc., Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
December 8, 1960.
Salamon & Noble (Milton Noble of counsel), for appellant. Handelsman, Arutt S Knox (Maxwell Handelsman of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The cabinets delivered were in exact accord with the contract. Plaintiff knew that actual installation might require adjustment for minute variations. However he chose to install them himself. He cannot now complain or seek to have a service performed for which he did not contract. Any finding based on a variance between the form of the contract when made and when offered in evidence was not based on proof sufficient to raise an issue.
The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant.
Concur—Hecht, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.