10 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1887–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
New Haven Properties Ltd. v. Grinberggreen1 sentence2022Simply put, "there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable" ( Willett v Lincolnshire Mgt. , 302 AD2d 271 , 271 [1st Dept 2003] [citation omitted]; see Boscorale Operating v Nautica Apparel, 298 AD2d 330, 331-332 [1st Dept 2002]; see also New Haven Props. v Grinberg , 293 AD2d 386 [1st Dept 2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Boscorale Operating, LLC v. Nautica Apparel, Inc.green1 sentence2022Simply put, "there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable" ( Willett v Lincolnshire Mgt. , 302 AD2d 271 , 271 [1st Dept 2003] [citation omitted]; see Boscorale Operating v Nautica Apparel, 298 AD2d 330, 331-332 [1st Dept 2002]; see also New Haven Props. v Grinberg , 293 AD2d 386 [1st Dept 2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Rose Inn of Ithaca, Inc. v. Great American Insurancegreen1 sentence2018However, plaintiff recognizes that "[t]he general rule is that a liquidated claim, that is, a claim which is not disputed, but admitted to be due, cannot be discharged by any payment of a less amount " ( Schnell v Perlmon , 238 NY 362, 367 [1924] [emphasis added]; see Rose Inn of Ithaca , 75 AD3d at 739 ), and defendants argue that "there is sufficient new or additional consideration [under the alleged new contract] to support the transaction as an accord and satisfaction" (Defendants' Brief, p. 5). | 1 | 1 |
Schnell v. . Perlmongreen1 sentence2018However, plaintiff recognizes that "[t]he general rule is that a liquidated claim, that is, a claim which is not disputed, but admitted to be due, cannot be discharged by any payment of a less amount " ( Schnell v Perlmon , 238 NY 362, 367 [1924] [emphasis added]; see Rose Inn of Ithaca , 75 AD3d at 739 ), and defendants argue that "there is sufficient new or additional consideration [under the alleged new contract] to support the transaction as an accord and satisfaction" (Defendants' Brief, p. 5). | 1 | 1 |
Conkling v. . Kinggreen1 sentence1973Jur., Accord and Satisfaction, § 26; see, also, Conkling v. King, 10 N. Y. 440 ; 41 ALR 1490 .) The effect of the accord and satisfaction is not impaired because the debtor’s attorney was instrumental in obtaining payment for the plaintiff (King Metal Prods. v. Workmen’s Compensation Bd., 20 A D 2d 565, supra). | 1 | 1 |
Schwartz v. California Claim Service, Ltd.green1 sentence1972There is no inviolability in a judgment which distinguishes it from liquidated demands as a subject of accord and satisfaction. “ The satisfaction of judgments for less than their face value is of everyday occurrence, and since every such settlement represents an agreement mutually satisfactory to the parties and fraught with some benefit to each, it should not be the policy of the law to discourage such sensible arrangements under which a creditor can satisfy a judgment for what he thinks it is worth, and a debtor can settle it for what he can. afford to pay.” (Schwartz v. California Claim Se | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2022Simply put, "there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable" ( Willett v Lincolnshire Mgt. , 302 AD2d 271 , 271 [1st Dept 2003] [citation omitted]; see Boscorale Operating v Nautica Apparel, 298 AD2d 330, 331-332 [1st Dept 2002]; see also New Haven Props. v Grinberg , 293 AD2d 386 [1st Dept 2002]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dunn v. . Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co.
green
1 sentence1999Moreover, there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable (see, Dunn v Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 NY 214, 219 ; Termini v Arthur Exhibitions, 9 Misc 2d 833 , affd 5 AD2d 973 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Termini v. John Arthur Exhibitions, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1999Moreover, there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable (see, Dunn v Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 NY 214, 219 ; Termini v Arthur Exhibitions, 9 Misc 2d 833 , affd 5 AD2d 973 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Leahy v. Kennedy
neutral
1 sentence1999Moreover, there is no right to set off a possible, unliquidated liability against a liquidated claim that is due and payable (see, Dunn v Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 NY 214, 219 ; Termini v Arthur Exhibitions, 9 Misc 2d 833 , affd 5 AD2d 973 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Addington v. . Forsyth Metal Goods Co.
neutral
1 sentence1965That being so, we need not consider whether plaintiff would be entitled to offset all or any part of the $217,279.66 deposit against a liquidated claim of $510,896 against Allied which arose out of another contract entered into on November 14, 1963, five days before Allied’s bankruptcy (see Addington v. Forsyth Metal Goods Co., 234 N. Y. 93 ). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Beecroft v. Carey
neutral
2 sentences1945(Beecroft v. Carey, 190 App. Div. 104 , and cases therein cited.) Payment by one other than the debtor is sufficient consideration for the acceptance by the creditor of a sum less than the amount of a liquidated claim. 1945(Beecroft v. Carey, 190 App. Div. 104 , and cases therein cited.) Payment by one other than the debtor is sufficient consideration for the acceptance by the creditor of a sum less than the amount of a liquidated claim. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Jackson v. Volkening
green
1 sentence1924In Jackson v. Volkening ( 81 App. Div. 36, 43 ; affd., 178 N. Y. 562 ) we find the following language used: “ The rule of law is well established, undoubtedly, that where a liquidated sum is due, the payment of part only, although accepted in satisfaction, is not, for want of consideration, *368 a discharge of the entire indebtedness, but this rule is not looked upon with favor and is confined strictly to cases falling within it.” In Fuller v. Kemp ( 138 N. Y. 231, 237 ) it was said: “ Where the demand is liquidated, and the liability of the debtor is not in good faith disputed, a different ru | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Fuller v. . Kemp
green
1 sentence1924In Jackson v. Volkening ( 81 App. Div. 36, 43 ; affd., 178 N. Y. 562 ) we find the following language used: “ The rule of law is well established, undoubtedly, that where a liquidated sum is due, the payment of part only, although accepted in satisfaction, is not, for want of consideration, *368 a discharge of the entire indebtedness, but this rule is not looked upon with favor and is confined strictly to cases falling within it.” In Fuller v. Kemp ( 138 N. Y. 231, 237 ) it was said: “ Where the demand is liquidated, and the liability of the debtor is not in good faith disputed, a different ru | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Jackson v. . Volkening
neutral
1 sentence1924In Jackson v. Volkening ( 81 App. Div. 36, 43 ; affd., 178 N. Y. 562 ) we find the following language used: “ The rule of law is well established, undoubtedly, that where a liquidated sum is due, the payment of part only, although accepted in satisfaction, is not, for want of consideration, *368 a discharge of the entire indebtedness, but this rule is not looked upon with favor and is confined strictly to cases falling within it.” In Fuller v. Kemp ( 138 N. Y. 231, 237 ) it was said: “ Where the demand is liquidated, and the liability of the debtor is not in good faith disputed, a different ru | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Elkan v. Hitchcock
neutral
2 sentences1906The case at bar was a liquidated claim, the amount owing the plaintiff was not in dispute by either party, the defendant attempted to pay the same by forcing the plaintiff to take $8.25 claiming the difference due them for a stone, and is in harmony with the case of Elkan et al. v. Hitchcock et al., 15 Misc. 1906Rep. 218 , 36 N. Y. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Bucklin v. Chapin
neutral
1 sentence1887In this matter, the executor contends that, should it be held that the claim has been presented, and not rejected but become a liquidated claim on. account stated, he has not thereby been estopped from setting up the long statute of limitations as a defence which has now run against it (Bucklin v. Chapin, 1 Lans., 443 ). | 1 | 1887–1887 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.