Skipworth v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skipworth v. Cooper

37 A.D.2d 906, 325 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3133

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 906 (Skipworth v. Cooper) 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

Skipworth v. Cooper, 37 A.D.2d 906, 325 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, Goldman, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: The finding that the release was the product of misrepresentation is supported by the evidence. Repayment by plaintiff to defendant or his insurance company of the amount received by him from defendant on giving the release is not a prerequisite to maintaining this action (see CPLR 3004; Marr v. Tumulty, 256 N. Y. 15, 21 et seq.; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 3004.01-3004.06). In Marr (p. 22) the court said, “Suitable conditions may be imposed in the decree ”. The ultimate rights of the defendant with respect to the payment he made for the release are fully and properly protected by the order appealed from and the parties will be bound thereby upon entry of the judgment after the determination of the merits of plaintiff’s action. This accords with established practice (Finke v. Iris Cab Corp., 1 [907]*907A D 2d 692). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing defense of general release.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, Goldman, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: The finding that the release was the product of misrepresentation is supported by the evidence. Repayment by plaintiff to defendant or his insurance company of the amount received by him from defendant on giving the release is not a prerequisite to maintaining this action (see CPLR 3004; Marr v. Tumulty, 256 N. Y. 15, 21 et seq.; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 3004.01-3004.06). In Marr (p. 22) the court said, “Suitable conditions may be imposed in the decree ”. The ultimate rights of the defendant with respect to the payment he made for the release are fully and properly protected by the order appealed from and the parties will be bound thereby upon entry of the judgment after the determination of the merits of plaintiff’s action. This accords with established practice (Finke v. Iris Cab Corp., 1 [907]*907A D 2d 692). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing defense of general release.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 906, 325 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skipworth-v-cooper-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack