
    Manhattan Savings Institution, Appellant, v. Gottfried Baking Company, Inc., Respondent.
    Argued June 9, 1941;
    decided July 29, 1941.
    
      
      John J. Cunneen for appellant.
    The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because plaintiff was entitled at least to nominal damages. (Stevens v. Amsinck, 149 App. Div. 220; Hutton v. Tullis, 93 Misc. Rep. 548; Shapiro v. Benenson, 181 App. Div. 19; MacGregor v. Watts, 254 App. Div. 904.)
    
      Allan R. Campbell for respondent.
    Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of nominal damages. (Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 270 N. Y. 652; Wells v. Fisher, 237 N. Y. 79; Baird v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 567; Ruttonjee v. Frame, 237 N. Y. 115; Phelps-Stokes Estates v. Nixon, 222 N. Y. 93; National Cash Register Co. v. Schmidt, 48 App. Div. 472; Los Angeles I. S. Corp. v. Joslyn, 282 N. Y. 438; Stevens v. Breen, 283 N. Y. 196; Matter of Winters v. Prendergast, 211 N. Y. 536; Parsons v. Sutton, 66 N. Y. 92; Stecker v. Weaver Coal Co., 116 App. Div. 772; Haddam Granite Co. v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 186 N. Y. 247; Bradford, E. & C. R. R. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 316.)
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff proved that the defendant breached its contract. The question whether the plaintiff suffered substantial damages by such breach is one of fact, and the determination of that question against the plaintiff in the courts below may not be reviewed in this court. The plaintiff was, however, entitled as matter of law to an award of nominal damages.

The judgments should be reversed and judgment directed for the plaintiff for six cents damage, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.  