Hydrodyne Industries, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hydrodyne Industries, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.

118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54485

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 626 (Hydrodyne Industries, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.) 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

Hydrodyne Industries, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A., 118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover alleged overcharges of interest on a loan, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), entered September 14, 1984, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff voluntarily executed a release.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s execution of a general release serves as an absolute bar to the instant action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The conclusory allegations contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss are inadequate to sustain its assertion that the release was the product of duress (see, Ermco Erectors v Grand Iron Works, 93 AD2d 878, affd 60 NY2d 634; see also, Powell v Oman Constr. Co., 25 AD2d 566). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover alleged overcharges of interest on a loan, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), entered September 14, 1984, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff voluntarily executed a release.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s execution of a general release serves as an absolute bar to the instant action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The conclusory allegations contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss are inadequate to sustain its assertion that the release was the product of duress (see, Ermco Erectors v Grand Iron Works, 93 AD2d 878, affd 60 NY2d 634; see also, Powell v Oman Constr. Co., 25 AD2d 566). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hydrodyne-industries-inc-v-marine-midland-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack