Breach of Contract: Richmor Aviation Inc. v. Sportsflight Air Inc.

Listen to this article

Appellate Division, Third Department

Breach of Contract

Modification of Trial Court’s Finding on Facts

Richmor Aviation Inc. v. Sportsflight Air Inc.
509735
Appealed from Supreme Court, Columbia County

Background: In June 2002, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff pursuant to which the plaintiff would provide exclusive use of a single Gulfstream IV aircraft to the U.S. government in transactions brokered by defendant for a term to expire on Nov. 6, 2002. An appendix to the contract provided that the defendant would guarantee 250 flight time hours within six months and the option to do 50 hours per month thereafter. It is undisputed that the charter price was significantly lower than the market rate. The defendant continued to broker flights between the government and the plaintiff until 2005.
In 2006, the plaintiff submitted an invoice to the defendant requesting payment for unused flight time allegedly guaranteed to it by the defendant. The defendant rejected the invoice and the plaintiff thereafter commenced this action for, among other things, damages. Supreme court ruled from the bench that the defendant was contractually obligated to refer 50 hours of flight time to the plaintiff each month. By subsequent written decision and order, the court determined that this obligation terminated in January 2005. Thereafter, the court issued an order and judgment awarding the plaintiff more than $1 million in damages, plus interest, from which the defendant now appeals.

Ruling: The court is unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that supreme court’s finding that the parties operated after November 2002 pursuant to the terms of the written contract was against the weight of the evidence. In reviewing a trial court’s decision rendered after a nonjury trial, this court may independently consider the probative weight of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom and grant the judgment it deems appropriate.
Even if the written contract itself was not extended, this evidence that the parties continued to perform after its expiration in substantially the same manner as they had performed during the initial term of the contract supports supreme court’s conclusion that the terms of the original contract continued to apply to the parties’ subsequent agreement. The court modifies the judgment on the facts by reducing the award of damages from $1,119,650 to $874,650, plus interest thereon at the contractual rate of 1.5% per month. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

Martin J. Murray for the appellant; Brian M. Quinn for the respondent