Mace v. Ticonderoga Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mace v. Ticonderoga Realty Co.

55 A.D.2d 978, 390 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 978 (Mace v. Ticonderoga Realty Co.) 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

Mace v. Ticonderoga Realty Co., 55 A.D.2d 978, 390 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered December 15, 1975 in Essex County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term in favor of the plaintiffs for the balance due on a promissory note, together with interest. The, defendants refused to pay the balance of the note due because they contend that the plaintiffs misrepresented the accounts receivable and upon the sales agreement there should be a setoff. Upon the present record the defendants have failed to establish any breach of warranty or misrepresentation which would entitle them to a setoff. The value or lack thereof Was clearly set forth in the sales agreement and there is no partial failure of consideration for the note. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mahoney, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered December 15, 1975 in Essex County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term in favor of the plaintiffs for the balance due on a promissory note, together with interest. The, defendants refused to pay the balance of the note due because they contend that the plaintiffs misrepresented the accounts receivable and upon the sales agreement there should be a setoff. Upon the present record the defendants have failed to establish any breach of warranty or misrepresentation which would entitle them to a setoff. The value or lack thereof Was clearly set forth in the sales agreement and there is no partial failure of consideration for the note. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mahoney, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 978, 390 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mace-v-ticonderoga-realty-co-nyappdiv-1977.