Suits v. Suits

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suits v. Suits

266 A.D.2d 813, 698 N.Y.S.2d 203

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 813 (Suits v. Suits) 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

Suits v. Suits, 266 A.D.2d 813, 698 N.Y.S.2d 203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Tormey, III, J.). We add that, where the basis for acceleration of a debt evidenced by an installment note “is trivial or inconsequential, the forfeiture may be viewed as an unconscionable penalty and equitable principles come into pla/’ (Tunnell Publ. Co. v Straus Communications, 169 AD2d 1031, 1032). Inasmuch as plaintiff would not have been prejudiced by acceptance of defendants’ tender of a cure, the court properly concluded that plaintiffs refusal to accept a cure and attempted enforcement of the acceleration clause were unconscionable (cf., Fifty States Mgt. Corp. v Pioneer Auto Parks, 46 NY2d 573, 579, rearg denied 47 NY2d 801).

All concur except Scudder, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

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

—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Tormey, III, J.). We add that, where the basis for acceleration of a debt evidenced by an installment note “is trivial or inconsequential, the forfeiture may be viewed as an unconscionable penalty and equitable principles come into pla/’ (Tunnell Publ. Co. v Straus Communications, 169 AD2d 1031, 1032). Inasmuch as plaintiff would not have been prejudiced by acceptance of defendants’ tender of a cure, the court properly concluded that plaintiffs refusal to accept a cure and attempted enforcement of the acceleration clause were unconscionable (cf., Fifty States Mgt. Corp. v Pioneer Auto Parks, 46 NY2d 573, 579, rearg denied 47 NY2d 801).

All concur except Scudder, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 813, 698 N.Y.S.2d 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suits-v-suits-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack