Russ & Russ, P.C. v. Schadoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russ & Russ, P.C. v. Schadoff

303 A.D.2d 394, 755 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 394 (Russ & Russ, P.C. v. Schadoff) 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

Russ & Russ, P.C. v. Schadoff, 303 A.D.2d 394, 755 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to enforce a confession of judgment, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered October 15, 2001, as denied those branches of his motion which were to vacate the confession of judgment, and, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which sought a vacatur of the confession of judgment inasmuch as the defendant could have litigated that claim in a prior action (cf. O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). However, the court erred in denying that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest (cf. Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971 [1979]). Under the circumstances, we find no triable issue of fact on the issue of whether the plaintiff waived its right to post-judgment interest. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to enforce a confession of judgment, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered October 15, 2001, as denied those branches of his motion which were to vacate the confession of judgment, and, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which sought a vacatur of the confession of judgment inasmuch as the defendant could have litigated that claim in a prior action (cf. O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). However, the court erred in denying that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the claim for postjudgment interest (cf. Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971 [1979]). Under the circumstances, we find no triable issue of fact on the issue of whether the plaintiff waived its right to post-judgment interest. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 394, 755 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russ-russ-pc-v-schadoff-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack