Case Name: ROCHKIND et al. v. JACOBSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05-01
Citations: 110 N.Y.S. 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROCHKIND et al. v. JACOBSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 110
Pages: 583–585

Head Matter:
ROCHKIND et al. v. JACOBSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
May 1, 1908.)
1. Contracts—Performance—Substantial Performance—Defects in Performance.
In an action to recover the amount alleged to be due on a building contract, the complaint alleging performance of the' contract, omissions or defects of a trifling nature will be disregarded, and deductions may be made from the contract price for minor omissions or defects, made inadvertently and in good faith, even though they are substantial, instead of judgment being given for defendant; but the omissions or defects may be such as to show themselves an intentional omission, so as to show as a matter of law that the contract was not substantially performed.
2. Same.
In an action to establish and foreclose a mechanic’s lien on property for the amount alleged to be due on a building contract, the complain? alleging substantial performance, where the contract price for the materials furnished was $3,100, and the evidence showed that materials to the value of $314 were not supplied as provided by the contract, it was error to leave to the jury whether the omissions were substantial, and to find as a fact,, after the verdict, that the omissions were not substantial, since the facts showed that plaintiff’s performance was not substantial as a matter of law.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
Action by. Samuel Rochkind, Abraham Cohen .and Abraham Mirken, copartners, comprising the firm of Rochkind, Cohen Sr Co., against Judah Jacobson. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and MILLER, JJ.
William S. Maddox (Philip E. Goodfleisch, on the brief), for appellant.
Abraham B. Schleimer, for respondents.

Opinion:
HOOKER, J.
The action is to establish and foreclose a mechanic's lien on real property. The complaint' alleges substantial performance. The plaintiff had judgment. The contract price was $3,100. There has been allowed to the defendant $314 for work which the plaintiff has not performed, in order to complete the contract. This is more than 10 per cent, of the contract price. Waiver of substantial performance is neither pleaded in the complaint nor proved by any satisfactory evidence. Under ordinary circumstances, and these in the record are not extraordinary, a failure to perform 10 per cent, of the contract price will not admit of the claim of substantial performance.
• The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
Judgment reversed on the law and facts, and new trial granted; costs to abide the final award of costs. All concur.