You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Nico Construction Co. v. Dorn

Citations: 214 A.D.2d 355; 625 N.Y.S.2d 485; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4149

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 11, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order and judgment on January 26, 1994, and February 28, 1994, respectively, affirming the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Steven Dorn, awarding the plaintiff a total of $178,817.21. The court found that Steven Dorn signed the relevant contract for work to be performed at Dorn Marini's premises in his personal capacity, not as a representative. There was no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of any agency relationship, thereby holding Dorn personally liable for the contract. The proposal from the plaintiff to provide labor and materials for specified design work, which was approved and accepted by Dorn, constituted a binding contract. The decision was unanimous among the justices.

Legal Issues Addressed

Contract Formation and Acceptance

Application: The acceptance of the plaintiff's proposal by Steven Dorn constituted a binding contract, as it outlined the provision of labor and materials for specified design work.

Reasoning: The proposal from the plaintiff to provide labor and materials for specified design work, which was approved and accepted by Dorn, constituted a binding contract.

Personal Liability for Contractual Obligations

Application: The court held Steven Dorn personally liable because he signed the contract in his personal capacity, not as a representative of an entity.

Reasoning: The court found that Steven Dorn signed the relevant contract for work to be performed at Dorn Marini's premises in his personal capacity, not as a representative.

Summary Judgment Procedure

Application: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff as there was no evidence indicating an agency relationship that would mitigate Dorn's personal liability.

Reasoning: There was no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of any agency relationship, thereby holding Dorn personally liable for the contract.