Sciortino & DiPilato Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sollecito

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Friedman, J.), dated April 14, 2000, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded it damages in the principal sum of only $2,521.85. Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $2,521.85 is deleted, a provision awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $8,396.85 is substituted therefor, the provision thereof awarding the defendant a net award of $2,124.96 is deleted, and a provision awarding the plaintiff a net award in the principal sum of $3,750.04 is substituted therefor. The plaintiff correctly asserts that damages in this case should have been measured by “the contract price, less pay763 merits made arid less the cost of completion” (New Era Homes Corp. v Forster, 299 NY 303, 307; see, New Day Bldrs. v SJC Realty, 219 AD2d 623). The Supreme Court erred in limiting the plaintiff to the amount stated in the mechanics hen. Here, the contract price, less payments made, equaled $5,875. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff supplied extras valued at $2,521.85, such that, before applying the offset for the cost of completion, the plaintiff was owed $8,396.85. Reducing the plaintiff’s damages by $4,646.81, the amount the Supreme Court awarded to the defendant on his counterclaim for the reasonable cost to complete the project, entitles the plaintiff to a net award in the principal sum of $3,750.04. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.