Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SAMUEL-ROZENBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HARRIS GOLDMAN DIAMOND CO., INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which, in an action for goods sold and delivered, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and imposed a sanction of $3500 against plaintiff to be paid to defendants' attorney, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Assuming in plaintiff's favor that the $175,000 claim it sues on was settled not through a substituted agreement but rather an accord and satisfaction, under which plaintiff executed a stipulation of discontinuance and general releases in exchange for defendants' promise to pay $100,000 immediately and $15,000 upon receipt of certain insurance proceeds, plaintiff fails to offer any evidence to support its claim that the $15,000 check defendants offered in satisfaction of the accord was not supported by sufficient funds, i.e., the insurance proceeds contemplated in the accord and satisfaction (see, Condo v. Mulcahy, 88 A.D.2d 497, 454 N.Y.S.2d 308). Furthermore, no reason appears why plaintiff sues for the full $175,000 it demanded in the first action when, pursuant to the accord and satisfaction, it accepted and retained a $100,000 payment; why plaintiff sued the individual defendant, who is not shown to have guaranteed payment of the goods sold to the corporate defendant; why plaintiff failed to acknowledge the corporate defendant's bankruptcy proceeding; and why plaintiff made scurrilous allegations of wrongdoing having no apparent relevance to the issue of payment. Accordingly, the sanction was warranted.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 22, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)