Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey, 99 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1984). · Go Syfert
Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey, 99 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marine Midland Bank, Formerly Marine Midland Bank-Central
v.
Edwin J. Stukey
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 27, 1984.
Published opinion
99 A.D.2d 662
1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16923
Published

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The record does not establish, as a matter of law, that the claims asserted in the counterclaim of Edwin J. Stukey were intended to be discharged through an accord and satisfaction on October 10,1979 when a new[*663] note was given representing Mr. Stukey’s obligation to the bank as endorser under the 1969 Fallon note. The court erred, therefore, in granting plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict and for a dismissal of the counterclaim based on the defense of accord and satisfaction. So much of the order as dismisses the counterclaim of Edwin J. Stukey is reversed and the counterclaim is reinstated. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, McKennan, J. — dismiss counterclaim.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.