Portchester Iron Works, Inc. v. Mario Di Gregorio, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Portchester Iron Works, Inc. v. Mario Di Gregorio, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 715, 346 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3948

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 715 (Portchester Iron Works, Inc. v. Mario Di Gregorio, Inc.) 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

Portchester Iron Works, Inc. v. Mario Di Gregorio, Inc., 42 A.D.2d 715, 346 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a balance due for work, labor and services performed and materials furnished, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 20, 1972, which denied its motion .to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a]). (The motion was treated by Special Term as one for summary judgment.) Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to serve its answer to the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. We are not, of course, passing, on the merits of appellant’s defense but are merely determining that plaintiff’s papers raise an issue of fact [716]*716as to whether there was, as a matter of law, an accord and satisfaction. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a balance due for work, labor and services performed and materials furnished, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 20, 1972, which denied its motion .to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a]). (The motion was treated by Special Term as one for summary judgment.) Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to serve its answer to the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. We are not, of course, passing, on the merits of appellant’s defense but are merely determining that plaintiff’s papers raise an issue of fact [716]*716as to whether there was, as a matter of law, an accord and satisfaction. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 715, 346 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portchester-iron-works-inc-v-mario-di-gregorio-inc-nyappdiv-1973.