Levine v. Royal Bank

The action was brought to recover the reasonable value of certain work, labor, and services alleged to have been performed and materials alleged to have been furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant, less a certain payment admitted to have been received on account. The answer was a general denial. Upon the plaintiff’s motion the cause was referred to a referee to hear and determine.the issues.

The work was performed upon an apartment house known as No. 510 West 124th street, borough of Manhattan, New York City. The papers contain a bill of particulars showing that the charge is made up of 43 items, ranging from $3 to $62.50, and averaging a little less than $30 each. This is not the case of a long account within the meaning of the Code provision, and the defendant was entitled to a jury trial. Feeter v. Arkenburgh, 147 N. Y. 237 , 41 N. E. 518 ; Spence v. Simis, 137 N. Y. 616 , 33 N. E. 554 ; Randall v. Sherman, 131 N. Y. 669 , 30 N. E. 589 ; Hedges v. Methodist, etc., Church, 23 App. Div. 347 , 48 N. Y. Supp. 154 ; Estes v. Dean, 1 App. Div. 34 , 36 N. Y. Supp. 747 ; Fowler v. Peck, 51 Misc. Rep. 645 , 99 N. Y. Supp. 816 ; Smith v. Royal Assurance Corporation, 114 App. Div. 868 , 100 N. Y. Supp. 194 . The work done, although performed upon 43 different apartments in the apartment house in question, appears to have been done under a single employment, and to have constituted but a single transaction. The only work specified in the bill of particulars is papering and kalsomining, and none of the items making up. the charge appear from the record to be at all complex in themselves, and all of them must of necessity have been of a similar general character.