Murphy v. Reardon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Reardon

261 A.D.2d 517, 690 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 517 (Murphy v. Reardon) 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

Murphy v. Reardon, 261 A.D.2d 517, 690 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered January 27, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $193,108.36.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s prior [518]*518action to recover money owed by the defendant pursuant to a promissory note (see, Murphy v Reardon, 211 AD2d 704) does not warrant dismissal of this action by the plaintiff to recover money owed by the defendant pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties (see, Murray, Hollander, Sullivan & Bass v Hem Research, 111 AD2d 63; Milnes Co. v Staten Is. Bd. of Jewish Educ., 26 AD2d 831).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered January 27, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $193,108.36.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s prior [518]*518action to recover money owed by the defendant pursuant to a promissory note (see, Murphy v Reardon, 211 AD2d 704) does not warrant dismissal of this action by the plaintiff to recover money owed by the defendant pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties (see, Murray, Hollander, Sullivan & Bass v Hem Research, 111 AD2d 63; Milnes Co. v Staten Is. Bd. of Jewish Educ., 26 AD2d 831).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 517, 690 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-reardon-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack