Fourth Department affirms decision in NY property dispute

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has affirmed a lower court ruling in a property dispute with a minor modification.

In May 2022, state Supreme Court Justice Bernadette T. Clark, in Oneida County, awarded defendant Robert Diegelman damages of $1,456.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, modified that order by reducing the award of damages to the defendant to $1,426.

Plaintiff Amber Well Drilling LLC filed the lawsuit seeking an unpaid balance for services provided in connection with a contract to install a new well and pump system on Diegelman’s property.

Diegelman filed a counterclaim alleging that the well was actually installed on his neighbors’ property and that, as a result, he was required to purchase the parcel containing the well from his neighbors.

His counterclaim sought reimbursement for the money spent by Diegelman for the purchase of the parcel.

According to evidence presented in a bench trial, although Diegelman gave Amber a survey of his property, they never met to discuss the exact location where the well would be installed, and the contract did not specify the exact location where the well would be installed.

Diegelman made two payments to Amber, but after purchasing the parcel containing the well from his neighbor, he declined to make full payment to Amber.

After the bench trial Justice Clark awarded Diegelman $1,456, which she determined was the difference between the cost of buying the land where the well was installed ($6,975) and the amount due to Amber under the contract ($5,549), and Amber appealed.

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, we conclude that the court properly determined that plaintiff breached the contract. The contract required that plaintiff install a new well on defendant’s property, and defendant provided plaintiff with a survey for that purpose,” the court wrote.

“Plaintiff thus breached the contract when it failed to place the well on defendant’s property. Furthermore, the court properly awarded defendant damages on his counterclaim representing the difference between the cost to defendant of buying the land where the well was installed and the amount due to plaintiff under the contract,” the court wrote.

“Damages awarded in a breach of contract action should place a (party) in the same position as it would have been if the agreement had not been violated,” the court wrote.

But the court also noted that Clark made a mathematical error in calculating the damages, so the order was reduced to $1,426.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035