Commissiong v. Currytto

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim that the defendant failed to perform home improvement services in their home's upstairs bathrooms in a workmanlike manner. At trial, the plaintiffs presented expert testimony from A, a general contractor hired by the plaintiffs after they terminated the defendant's ser- vices. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that he breached the parties' contract. Held: The trial court properly applied the law in determining that the defendant had not met his burden of proving that the plaintiffs had materially breached the contract by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to cure, as the court found that the serious deficiencies in the upstairs bathrooms would not be corrected with additional time, and, therefore, providing notice and an opportunity to cure would have been futile. This court declined to review the merits of the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly determined that he failed to prove the count of his counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, as the defendant failed to provide an adequate record for review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting A's testimony as an expert in home improvement contracting or in crediting A's testimony to find that the work performed by the defendant in the upstairs bathrooms was unworkmanlike, as, although A admitted that he was not an expert in plumb- ing matters, the defendant did not identify any portion of A's testimony that required plumbing expertise or that exceeded the scope of his qualifications as an expert in home improvement contracting, and the defendant did not object to any specific portion of A's testimony on the basis that he did not possess the appropriate qualifications to offer an expert opinion. This court declined to review the defendant's claim that the trial court deprived him of his right to a fair trial, as it was inad