Lachman v. Lachman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lachman v. Lachman

61 A.D.2d 767, 402 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 767 (Lachman v. Lachman) 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

Lachman v. Lachman, 61 A.D.2d 767, 402 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 26, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, and plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment granted to the extent hereinafter set forth, with $60 costs and disbursements payable by respondent to appellant, and otherwise affirmed. The principal sum of $100,000 in the note given by defendant to plaintiff was satisfied by setoff against an obligation in the same amount. Only interest at 7%, the rate stated in the instrument, remains to be paid, covering the period from the note’s date, May 12, 1976 to the date of demand for payment, August 3, 1977, with interest thereafter to the date of setoff, December 31, 1977 to be calculated at 6%. The defense sought to be interposed of an oral agreement of forebearance of the obligation is not available to defendant. Not alone is it barred by the parol evidence rule, but there is no evidence to sustain the factual pattern claimed by defendant as indicating that forebearance. There being no factual issue to be decided, plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Concur—Evans, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 26, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, and plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment granted to the extent hereinafter set forth, with $60 costs and disbursements payable by respondent to appellant, and otherwise affirmed. The principal sum of $100,000 in the note given by defendant to plaintiff was satisfied by setoff against an obligation in the same amount. Only interest at 7%, the rate stated in the instrument, remains to be paid, covering the period from the note’s date, May 12, 1976 to the date of demand for payment, August 3, 1977, with interest thereafter to the date of setoff, December 31, 1977 to be calculated at 6%. The defense sought to be interposed of an oral agreement of forebearance of the obligation is not available to defendant. Not alone is it barred by the parol evidence rule, but there is no evidence to sustain the factual pattern claimed by defendant as indicating that forebearance. There being no factual issue to be decided, plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Concur—Evans, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 767, 402 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lachman-v-lachman-nyappdiv-1978.