unliquidated claim in New York

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999A genuine dispute requires that the debtor give notice of the dispute prior to tendering a partial payment in full satisfaction (see, Century 21 Kaaterskill Realty v Grasso, 124 AD2d 316 ; see, Schnell v Perlmon, 238 NY 362 ; Fuller v Kemp, 138 NY 231 ; Schuttinger v Woodruff, 259 NY 212 ).

1999The party asserting the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction must establish that there was a genuine dispute regarding an unliquidated claim between the parties which they mutually resolved through a new contract discharging all or part of their obligations under the original contract (see, Horn Waterproofing Corp. v Bushwick Iron & Steel Co., supra).

1999The party asserting the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction must establish that there was a genuine dispute regarding an unliquidated claim between the parties which they mutually resolved through a new contract discharging all or part of their obligations under the original contract (see, Horn Waterproofing Corp. v Bushwick Iron & Steel Co., supra).

1991"An essential element of an accord and satisfaction is a clear manifestation of intent by one tendering less than full payment of an unliquidated claim that the payment has been sent in full satisfaction of the disputed claim” (Itoh & Co. v Honerkamp Co., 99 AD2d 417, 418 ; see, Hudson v Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 NY 168, 174 ).

1991(Supra, at 596.) An essential element of an accord and satisfaction is a clear manifestation of intent by one tendering less than full payment of an unliquidated claim that the payment has been sent in full satisfaction of the disputed claim (see, Itoh & Co. v Honerkamp Co., 99 AD2d 417, 418 ).

1985Particularly significant is the reference to Nassoiy v Tomlinson ( 148 NY 326 , supra), a seminal decision in this State applying the doctrine of accord and satisfaction under facts involving a full payment check.

1896Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 , 33 N. E. 1034 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326 , 42 N. E. 715 ; Lestienne v. Ernst, 5 App. Div. 373 , 39 N. Y.

1960As the court stated in Prentiss v. Greene ( 193 App. Div. 672 ): “ A warrant of attachment is not a common law right but is a statutory provisional remedy and authorizes the taking of property before judgment, and where, as here, it is sought upon an unliquidated claim, it must clearly appear by prima facie evidence at least that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damages which he demands ” (see, also, Sicklick v. Schausseur, 221 App. Div. 742 ; Corcoran & Kostelanitz v. Dupuy, 6 A D 2d 776).

1927In Prentiss v. Greene ( 193 App. Div. 672 ) this court said: “A warrant of attachment is not a common-law right but is a statutory provisional remedy and authorizes the taking of property before judgment, and where, as here, it is sought upon an unliquidated claim, it must clearly appear by prima facie evidence at least that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damages which he demands ” (and cases cited).

1896(Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson , 148 id. 326 ; Lestienne v. Ernst, 5 App. Div. 373 .) The statutory requisite of the statement of new matter constituting a defense is that it be made “ in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ.

1896Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 , 33 N. E. 1034 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326 , 42 N. E. 715 ; Lestienne v. Ernst, 5 App. Div. 373 , 39 N. Y.

2011In any event, an innocent failure to schedule an unliquidated claim of this nature is immaterial to the question at bar (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-NY., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]; Whelan v Longo, supra).

2011In any event, an innocent failure to schedule an unliquidated claim of this nature is immaterial to the question at bar (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-NY., 69 NY2d 191 [1987]; Whelan v Longo, supra).

2011In light of Schneider’s failure to disclose the pendency of the underlying administrative proceeding in the schedule of assets in her bankruptcy petition, Schneider lacked capacity to continue the pursuit of her administrative claim against the petitioners (see Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]; Weitz v Lewin, 251 AD2d 402 [1998]; Hart Sys. v Arvee Sys., 244 AD2d 527 [1997]; Quiros v Polow, 135 AD2d 697, 699 [1987]).

2011In light of Schneider’s failure to disclose the pendency of the underlying administrative proceeding in the schedule of assets in her bankruptcy petition, Schneider lacked capacity to continue the pursuit of her administrative claim against the petitioners (see Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]; Weitz v Lewin, 251 AD2d 402 [1998]; Hart Sys. v Arvee Sys., 244 AD2d 527 [1997]; Quiros v Polow, 135 AD2d 697, 699 [1987]).

2004To have accord and satisfaction, pursuant to GOL § 15-501, the Appellate Division, First Department held in Nationwide Registry & Sec., Ltd. v B & R Consultants, Inc., 4 AD3d 298 (2004), that there must be an acceptance of payment "in full settlement of a disputed unliquidated claim, without any reservations of rights." Trans World Grocers, Inc. v Sultana Crackers, Inc., 257 AD2d 616 (2d Dept 1999) instructed, at 617, that "[t]he party asserting the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction must establish that there was a genuine dispute regarding an unliquidated claim between the parties

2004To have accord and satisfaction, pursuant to GOL § 15-501, the Appellate Division, First Department held in Nationwide Registry & Sec., Ltd. v B & R Consultants, Inc., 4 AD3d 298 (2004), that there must be an acceptance of payment "in full settlement of a disputed unliquidated claim, without any reservations of rights." Trans World Grocers, Inc. v Sultana Crackers, Inc., 257 AD2d 616 (2d Dept 1999) instructed, at 617, that "[t]he party asserting the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction must establish that there was a genuine dispute regarding an unliquidated claim between the parties

1991(Conboy, McKay, Bachman & Kendall v Armstrong, 110 AD2d 1042, 1043 .) Similarly, there must be a "clear manifestation of intent by one tendering less than full payment of an unliquidated claim that the payment has been sent in full satisfaction of the disputed claim”.

1984(Hudson v Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 NY 168, 174 ; Manley v Pandick Press, 72 AD2d 452, 454 ; Hirsch v Berger Import & Mfg.

1984These decisions have held that a plaintiff in a negligence action is not entitled to have a reserve established for his benefit as the holder of an unliquidated or a contingent claim against an estate (Wallace v Ford, 44 Misc 2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Rosenfeld, 42 Misc 2d 117 ; Matter of Schwartz, 19 Misc 2d 203 ; Matter of Zutell, 213 NYS2d 290 ).

1984These decisions have held that a plaintiff in a negligence action is not entitled to have a reserve established for his benefit as the holder of an unliquidated or a contingent claim against an estate (Wallace v Ford, 44 Misc 2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Rosenfeld, 42 Misc 2d 117 ; Matter of Schwartz, 19 Misc 2d 203 ; Matter of Zutell, 213 NYS2d 290 ).

1984These decisions have held that a plaintiff in a negligence action is not entitled to have a reserve established for his benefit as the holder of an unliquidated or a contingent claim against an estate (Wallace v Ford, 44 Misc 2d 313, 318 ; Matter of Rosenfeld, 42 Misc 2d 117 ; Matter of Schwartz, 19 Misc 2d 203 ; Matter of Zutell, 213 NYS2d 290 ).

1979(Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1361, subd 2; Sadow v Poskin Realty Corp., supra.) The opening language of the instrument Patri cia delivered to the County appears to resemble a simple assignment of proceeds only.

1972In Matter of Burridge ( 146 Misc. 527, 528-529 ) Surrogate Foley noted this void in the probate law of New York.

1972(Matter of Baldwin, 157 Misc. 538 .) Petitioner urges that payment of the unliquidated claim of decedent’s first wife would be best provided for by immediate discharge of the executor and the final settlement of its accounts through an order directing that future payments on such claim be made from the trust of decedent’s residuary estate and by the trustee of that trust.

1960As the court stated in Prentiss v. Greene ( 193 App. Div. 672 ): “ A warrant of attachment is not a common law right but is a statutory provisional remedy and authorizes the taking of property before judgment, and where, as here, it is sought upon an unliquidated claim, it must clearly appear by prima facie evidence at least that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damages which he demands ” (see, also, Sicklick v. Schausseur, 221 App. Div. 742 ; Corcoran & Kostelanitz v. Dupuy, 6 A D 2d 776).

1943Co., 169 N. Y. 314, 324 .) An assignment of a distributive share is not a conveyance of tangible property but the assignment of an unliquidated claim, which is always subject to cross demands existing at the date of the assignment.

1939Could the latter have determined what was due, either by computations alone or by computation in connection with established market values, or other generally recognized standards?” (Faber v. City of New York, 222 N. Y. 255, 262 .) Here the respondents’ estate may not take advantage of its refusal to pay the amount when it was due by claiming that this very refusal resulted in an unliquidated claim. “ More and more the courts are coming over to the view that in actions on implied contracts to recover for services or property, interest is a concomitant very nearly automatic, and this though the