Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Patterson

New York Supreme Court

Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Patterson

116 Misc. 2d 547, 456 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3914

DecidedNovember 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 116 Misc. 2d 547 (Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holiday Universal, Inc. v. Patterson, 116 Misc. 2d 547, 456 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3914 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

John S. Lockman, J.

Motion to vacate a satisfaction of judgment, though unopposed, is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff secured a judgment for $626.58 against defendant upon a retail installment credit agreement. Defendant paid $400 on July 6, 1982. On August 5, 1982, plaintiff’s attorney received a third-party check in payment of the balance. On August 18, 1982, he filed a satisfaction of judgment. Thereafter, the third-party check was returned for insufficient funds.

Having accepted the third-party check, plaintiff cites no authority which would entitle him to vacating the satisfaction. Clearly, he has a cause of action against the maker of the check. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-122.) Absent authority to support the granting of the relief sought, the court is constrained to deny the motion but without prejudice.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

John S. Lockman, J.

Motion to vacate a satisfaction of judgment, though unopposed, is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff secured a judgment for $626.58 against defendant upon a retail installment credit agreement. Defendant paid $400 on July 6, 1982. On August 5, 1982, plaintiff’s attorney received a third-party check in payment of the balance. On August 18, 1982, he filed a satisfaction of judgment. Thereafter, the third-party check was returned for insufficient funds.

Having accepted the third-party check, plaintiff cites no authority which would entitle him to vacating the satisfaction. Clearly, he has a cause of action against the maker of the check. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-122.) Absent authority to support the granting of the relief sought, the court is constrained to deny the motion but without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 Misc. 2d 547, 456 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1982 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holiday-universal-inc-v-patterson-nysupct-1982.