Cerra v. Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cerra v. Syracuse University

273 A.D.2d 942, 709 N.Y.S.2d 789

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 942 (Cerra v. Syracuse University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cerra v. Syracuse University, 273 A.D.2d 942, 709 N.Y.S.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking dismissal of the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction (see, CPLR 3211 [b]). The documentary evidence submitted by plaintiffs establishes that the settlement of each action was conditioned on the acceptance by the respective plaintiff of the amount offered by defendant. Because each of the six plaintiffs at issue rejected the offered amount, there was no agreement and thus no “accord” (cf., Moweta v Citywide Home Improvements, 267 AD2d 438). We therefore modify the order accordingly.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting in part defendant’s motion to sever by ordering separate trials on the issue of damages (cf., J & A Vending v J.A.M. Vending, 268 AD2d 504). The record establishes that the number and differing nature and degree of the damages claims would likely create juror confusion if the actions were tried jointly. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking dismissal of the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction (see, CPLR 3211 [b]). The documentary evidence submitted by plaintiffs establishes that the settlement of each action was conditioned on the acceptance by the respective plaintiff of the amount offered by defendant. Because each of the six plaintiffs at issue rejected the offered amount, there was no agreement and thus no “accord” (cf., Moweta v Citywide Home Improvements, 267 AD2d 438). We therefore modify the order accordingly.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting in part defendant’s motion to sever by ordering separate trials on the issue of damages (cf., J & A Vending v J.A.M. Vending, 268 AD2d 504). The record establishes that the number and differing nature and degree of the damages claims would likely create juror confusion if the actions were tried jointly. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 942, 709 N.Y.S.2d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cerra-v-syracuse-university-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack