Opinion ID: 2671613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Restitution Credit

Text: Fishman’s final argument is that the Court erred in awarding Frick credit for $2,200 in restitution payments made by Lewandowski to Fishman and directing Lewandowski to make all future payments directly to Frick. Fishman contends that, because Frick did not request restitution in its pleadings or implead Lewandowksi as a third-party defendant, the Court lacked authority to make such an award. Fishman cites no legal authority for this position and it is not persuasive. The Court properly determined that Fishman could not receive both restitution and damages because that would be a double recovery. By ordering Lewandowski to make future restitution payments to Frick, the Court was practical in ruling that Frick should pay damages to Fishman in full and recoup any credit directly from Lewandowski. Fishman’s appellate brief opposes the restitution determination only because it believes that, if it does not receive lost profits, it should not have its damages offset by restitution. Fishman cannot decide that it should receive both damages and restitution simply because damages are less than it hoped they would be.4 For these reasons, we affirm. 4 Frick argues that Fishman waived its arguments as to rent credit and restitution by failing to raise them in the Concise Summary of the Case required by our Court’s Local Appellate Rule 33.3. This position is entirely unsupported. Local Rule 33.3 requires, among other things, a Concise Summary of the Case for purposes of facilitating mediation and does not bear on the preservation of substantive claims. 5