From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crandall v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 20, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was not untimely so as to require its denial, even though it was made on the eve of trial, since the motion was clearly meritorious and, under CPLR 3212 (a), it could be made at any time after issue had been joined (see, Kule Resources v Reliance Group, 49 N.Y.2d 587; Carvel Corp. v Burstein, 99 A.D.2d 935, affd 62 N.Y.2d 638). The defendant asserted a valid and complete defense of accord and satisfaction since the plaintiff, Amelia Crandall, had negotiated a draft which clearly stated that its indorsement was an "acknowledgment of full settlement * * * of claims * * * for * * * injury" and it was made in payment for "Damages resulting from bodily injury due to an occurrence on or about 1/2/82" (see, Merrill Lynch Realty/Carll Burr, Inc. v Skinner, 63 N.Y.2d 590, rearg denied 64 N.Y.2d 885). The plaintiffs' attempt to introduce evidence of a prior oral representation is of no avail because, under the parol evidence rule, conditions precedent which contradict, vary or negate the express terms of an agreement are inadmissible (see, Hicks v Bush, 10 N.Y.2d 488). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crandall v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Crandall v. Waldbaum, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AMELIA CRANDALL et al., Appellants, v. WALDBAUM, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 20, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)