Medallion Chem. Corp. v. Chem. Resources, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Medallion Chem. Corp. v. Chem. Resources, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blackman v. Stagno
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Lovell Co. v Houghton, 116 NY 520, 526 [1889]; see Simpson v Cook Pony Farm Real Estate, Inc., 12 AD3d 496, 497 [2004]; Murphy v Herfort, 140 AD2d 415, 416 [1988]; Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. v Finberg, 58 AD2d 808, 809 [1977]).
discussed Cited "see" Misek-Falkoff v. Keller
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
In this case, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant’s statements were "so extravagant in [their] denunciations or so vituperative in [their] character as to justify an inference of malice” (Ashcroft v Hammond, supra, at 496; see, Mercedes Benz v Finberg, 58 AD2d 808, 809 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Medallion Chemical Corporation
v.
Chemical Resources, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 5, 1977.
58 A.D.2d 808
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin defendants from soliciting plaintiffs customers, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 22, 1977, which denied its motion to enforce an alleged agreement of settlement. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant failed to establish that there was a definite agreement between the parties to settle the action. The oral agreement which appellant contends was definite and complete, only awaiting reduction to writing, was more obviously an agreement to attempt a settlement of numerous important points that included a consent injunction and payment of $35,000. The writings which appellant contends confirm a definite agreement settling the action and which are allegedly sufficient to satisfy the subscribed writing requirement of CPLR 2104, support the opposite conclusion, to wit, that the president of the corporate respondent did not intend to be bound by a settlement until he signed a final agreement.

Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.