Deitch v. Kessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deitch v. Kessler

8 A.D.2d 599, 184 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207

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

DecidedApril 14, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 599 (Deitch v. Kessler) 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

Deitch v. Kessler, 8 A.D.2d 599, 184 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law to the extent of allowing interest on the sum of $15,000 from July 2, 1956, as against all defendants and is otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent-appellant. The trial court found that there was no legal basis or justification for the payment on July 2, 1956, of the additional sum of $15,000, or its retention by Kessler, and concluded that the exaction of such payment was made under duress. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date when he was wrongfully deprived of his property. (Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ. [13 Misc 2d 421.]

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law to the extent of allowing interest on the sum of $15,000 from July 2, 1956, as against all defendants and is otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent-appellant. The trial court found that there was no legal basis or justification for the payment on July 2, 1956, of the additional sum of $15,000, or its retention by Kessler, and concluded that the exaction of such payment was made under duress. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date when he was wrongfully deprived of his property. (Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ. [13 Misc 2d 421.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 599, 184 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deitch-v-kessler-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack