Naiztat Iron Works, Inc. v. Seaport Manor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naiztat Iron Works, Inc. v. Seaport Manor Corp.

78 A.D.2d 676, 432 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13178

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 676 (Naiztat Iron Works, Inc. v. Seaport Manor Corp.) 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

Naiztat Iron Works, Inc. v. Seaport Manor Corp., 78 A.D.2d 676, 432 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contract action in which plaintiff recovered a judgment, entered December 8, 1976, in the total sum of $16,717.65, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December [677]*6776, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion to compel it to execute and deliver a satisfaction of judgment to defendants. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion denied. Absent consideration, an oral agreement to discharge a judgment by acceptance of a sum less than the face value of the judgment is unenforceable under section 15-501 of the General Obligations Law. Acceptance of the smaller payment pursuant to said agreement, will neither satisfy the judgment nor be grounds for compelling the judgment creditor to execute and deliver a satisfaction piece (see Amity Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. v Island Park Plumbing & Heating Corp., 51 AD2d 988; Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 AD2d 565). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a contract action in which plaintiff recovered a judgment, entered December 8, 1976, in the total sum of $16,717.65, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December [677]*6776, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion to compel it to execute and deliver a satisfaction of judgment to defendants. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion denied. Absent consideration, an oral agreement to discharge a judgment by acceptance of a sum less than the face value of the judgment is unenforceable under section 15-501 of the General Obligations Law. Acceptance of the smaller payment pursuant to said agreement, will neither satisfy the judgment nor be grounds for compelling the judgment creditor to execute and deliver a satisfaction piece (see Amity Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. v Island Park Plumbing & Heating Corp., 51 AD2d 988; Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 AD2d 565). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 676, 432 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naiztat-iron-works-inc-v-seaport-manor-corp-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack