From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haimowitz v. Lorintz

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 17, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 448 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

June 17, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, DAVID L. DUGAN, J.

Thomas Bress for appellant.

David Berg and Ronald S. Konecky for respondents.


Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for the return of the security deposit. No accord and satisfaction resulted from the retention by plaintiff of that part of his security which was returned to him. The money returned was him own (Real Property Law, § 233) and was conceded by the defendants to be due to plaintiff in any event ( Hudson v. Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 N.Y. 168; Eames Vacuum Brake Co., v. Prosser, 157 N.Y. 289).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Haimowitz v. Lorintz

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 17, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 448 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Haimowitz v. Lorintz

Case Details

Full title:IRVING HAIMOWITZ, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER LORINTZ et al., Doing Business…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1958

Citations

13 Misc. 2d 448 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
180 N.Y.S.2d 780

Citing Cases

McMahon v. Pfister

The basis of a legal accord and satisfaction is either a settlement and compromise of the amount claimed due…

Howell Mfg. Corp. v. Leiblein

The money recovered was only a portion of money which belonged to plaintiff. ( Haimowitz v. Lorintz, 13…