collection claim in New York

2018This time-consuming task was significantly complicated by defendant's failure to maintain accurate records, which required investigators to obtain documentation from the various vendors and reconstruct and analyze the transactions to determine which expenditures were related to SEARCO purposes ( see People v Green , 52 AD3d 1263, 1264-1265 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 788 [2008]).

2007The Court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendant’s cross motion dismissing the plaintiffs fourth cause of action to recover collection fees based upon the collection clause’s lack of mutuality, fundamental unfairness and chilling effect on a client who might complain about a fee, even if it was unreasonable (Ween v Dow, supra at 63-64 ).

1994At this third stage, the jury is left to hear the testimony and consider the weight of the evidence — i.e., "possible infirmities in the collection and analysis of data" (1 McCormick, Evidence § 203, at 877 [4th ed 1992]; People v Middleton , supra , at 51).

1994At this third stage, the jury is left to hear the testimony and consider the weight of the evidence— i.e., "possible infirmities in the collection and analysis of data” (1 McCormick, Evidence § 203, at 877 [4th ed 1992]; People v Middleton, supra, at 51 ).

1976With respect to any limitation of time within which an action or proceeding may be brought * * * the presentation of a claim as provided in 1803 shall be deemed the institution of a special proceeding for the collection of the claim.” Moreover, the Court of Appeals has also long held that the filing of a verified claim against an estate is " 'the commencement of a special proceeding that [tolls] the Statute of Limitations’.” (Matter of Feinberg, 18 NY2d 499, 506 ; Matter of Schorer, 272 NY 247, 250 ).

1976Accordingly, the filing of a verified claim constitutes a special proceeding and the tolling provisions of CPLR 210 apply (see Matter of Whitcher, 230 App Div 239, 240 ; Matter of Morris, 45 Misc 2d 393, 395-396 ; see, also, Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 301, pp 305-306).

1976Accordingly, the filing of a verified claim constitutes a special proceeding and the tolling provisions of CPLR 210 apply (see Matter of Whitcher, 230 App Div 239, 240 ; Matter of Morris, 45 Misc 2d 393, 395-396 ; see, also, Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 301, pp 305-306).

1976With respect to any limitation of time within which an action or proceeding may be brought * * * the presentation of a claim as provided in 1803 shall be deemed the institution of a special proceeding for the collection of the claim.” Moreover, the Court of Appeals has also long held that the filing of a verified claim against an estate is " 'the commencement of a special proceeding that [tolls] the Statute of Limitations’.” (Matter of Feinberg, 18 NY2d 499, 506 ; Matter of Schorer, 272 NY 247, 250 ).

1975Additionally, collateral allegations of violations of antitrust laws do not constitute sufficient defenses to a collection claim (Columbia Broadcasting System, v Roskin Distrs., 31 AD2d 22 , affd. 28 NY2d 559 ; New York Stock Exch v Goodbody & Co., 42 AD2d 556 ).

1975Additionally, collateral allegations of violations of antitrust laws do not constitute sufficient defenses to a collection claim (Columbia Broadcasting System, v Roskin Distrs., 31 AD2d 22 , affd. 28 NY2d 559 ; New York Stock Exch v Goodbody & Co., 42 AD2d 556 ).

1975Additionally, collateral allegations of violations of antitrust laws do not constitute sufficient defenses to a collection claim (Columbia Broadcasting System, v Roskin Distrs., 31 AD2d 22 , affd. 28 NY2d 559 ; New York Stock Exch v Goodbody & Co., 42 AD2d 556 ).

1972(See Lee v. Community Capital Corp., supra.) But, whatever those facts may be, there was insufficient proof in this hearing to place Mrs. Blackman in the collection or claim business by virtue of her husband’s activity, and the court so ruled from the Bench.

1941(Matter of Towne, 253 App. Div. 795 ; 278 N. Y. 597 .) The assignee, with the approval of the bankruptcy court, then began this action to obtain a declaratory judgment “ determining that he is entitled to a one-tenth interest in all distributable income from said trust funds ” and directing the defendant trustees to pay over to the plaintiff that portion of the income.

1941(Matter of Towne, 253 App. Div. 795 ; 278 N. Y. 597 .) The assignee, with the approval of the bankruptcy court, then began this action to obtain a declaratory judgment “ determining that he is entitled to a one-tenth interest in all distributable income from said trust funds ” and directing the defendant trustees to pay over to the plaintiff that portion of the income.

1933The case presently at bar is, of course, an instance of the second variety of contempt, concerning which the court said in Cochran v. Ingersoll ( 13 Hun, 368 , 370): “ The court is not called upon to vindicate either its dignity or its process, but simply to assist a suitor in the collection of a claim, and there is a solid and obvious distinction between contempt, strictly such, and those offenses which go by that name, but which are punished as contempt only for the purpose of enforcing some civil remedy.” (See, also, Basch v. Associated Features Booking Co., Inc., 92 Misc. 450, 452 .) On or

1933As was said by the court in Staples v. Staples ( 206 App. Div. 196, 198 ), where it was determined that continued incarceration could not be of any possible benefit to any one: “ The court should not prolong the imprisonment indefinitely, merely for the sake of punishing him.” This consideration early led to the enactment of statutes, which have been continuously maintained until the present time, permitting the release from imprisonment of such an individual upon certain specified conditions where further incarceration could not be of any benefit to the opponent.

1931The plaintiff in an action to recover the amounts which would become due on said notes if they had been delivered as proposed, alleged that he discontinued the collection of his claim and canceled and surrendered the same with interest and accepted the offer of the defendant to take the notes, which the defendant refused to deliver.” And in the case of Lane & Co. v. United Oil Cloth Co. ( 103 App. Div. 378 ) it was held that it is not necessary that there shall be an express agreement for a novation or substitution of parties to a contract.

1927(Harrington v. Keteltas, 92 N. Y. 40 .) The situation was not the same as when the notes in the corporation matter became due over two years later at a time when the debtor had transferred his real estate.

1905He must allege and prove that the claim was *32 turned over to the attorney for collection; that there was a failure to collect, and that this failure was due to the culpable neglect of the attorney, and that but for such negligence the debt could or would have been collected.” Again, at page 396, the rule as to unauthorized acts is stated as follows: “ An attorney, being without authority to take certain steps in regard to his client’s matters, is liable personally for any injury suffered by his client in consequence of .liis improperly assuming to act where he has no authority. * * * But in

1898“Probable cause may be founded on misinformation as to the facts, but not as to the law.” Hazzard v. Flury, 120 N. Y. 223, 227 , 24 N. E. 194 .

1898“Probable cause may be founded on misinformation as to the facts, but not as to the law.” Hazzard v. Flury, 120 N. Y. 223, 227 , 24 N. E. 194 .

1896The plaintiff "has made no effort to enforce the collection of his claim against George, as administrator, and against his Sureties, nor against the next of kin; and until such efforts are exhausted he could not maintain this action, if there were no other objections. “ These proceedings must be rigorously and precisely pursued, according to the statute.” Rogers v. Patterson, supra. There is another fatal objection.

1889King v. Baldwin, supra; Remsen v. Beekman, 25 N. Y. 552 ; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95 .

1889King v. Baldwin, supra; Remsen v. Beekman, 25 N. Y. 552 ; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95 .

1889King v. Baldwin, supra; Remsen v. Beekman, 25 N. Y. 552 ; Colgrove v. Tallman, 67 N. Y. 95 .