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.
Henry T. ROSS, appellant, v. William D. FRIEDMAN, defendant, Louise Ais, respondent.
In an action, in effect, to compel the release of money from an escrow account, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated October 16, 1997, which reversed a judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau, Second District (Gewanter, J.), entered April 23, 1996, dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant Louise Ais the principal sum of $750, plus interest, on her counterclaim, and directed a new trial.
ORDERED that the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau, Second District, is modified by deleting (1) the provision thereof awarding interest on the counterclaim, and (2) the provision thereof dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision directing the defendant William Friedman to release from the escrow account the sum of $750 to the defendant Louise Ais and the remaining sum of $750 to the plaintiff; as so modified, the judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau, Second District is affirmed.
An appeal from a small claims judgment is permitted “on the sole [ground] that substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807). Here, the District Court did not deviate from the appropriate rules and principles of substantive law, and the result reached effected substantial justice between the parties. Accordingly, the judgment should be reinstated insofar as it awarded the defendant Louise Ais the principal sum of $750 on her counterclaim. However, inasmuch as the “Possession Rider” did not provide that the escrow money be held in an interest-bearing account, the defendant Ais is not entitled to interest on the award. Moreover, the court should have directed that the payment on the counterclaim be made from the money held in escrow, and that the remaining money in the escrow account be turned over to the plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 28, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)