From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. Alaliewie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 17, 2003
304 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

92863

April 17, 2003.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered September 23, 2002 in Schoharie County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

The Harding Law Firm, Glenville (Charles R. Harding of counsel), for appellant.

Coughtry Associates, Altamont (David M. Lenney, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff seeks rescission of a 1998 agreement with defendant Richard Houle amending a 1996 stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into plaintiff's and Houle's judgment of divorce. Plaintiff contends that Houle failed to comply with a provision in the 1998 agreement that she claims required him to pay her $50,000 on May 1, 2001. By notice of motion dated June 21, 2002, plaintiff moved for leave to serve an amended complaint and for an order granting partial summary judgment against Houle on the issue of liability. Supreme Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint but denied her motion for partial summary judgment against Houle. Plaintiff appeals.

A more detailed recitation of the background facts concerning plaintiff's and Houle's divorce and their subsequent litigation is provided in our decisions in Houle v. Houle ( 304 A.D.2d 992 [decided herewith]) and Marshall v. Alaliewie ( 304 A.D.2d 1032 [decided herewith]).

Plaintiff asserts that she was entitled to payment under the provision of the parties' 1998 agreement requiring Houle to pay her $50,000 "when the balloon payment becomes due from [defendants Abdallatief Alaliewie and Nora Alaliewie] in three years" under a purchase money mortgage on certain property. Rescission, however, "`is to be invoked only when there is lacking complete and adequate remedy at law and where the status quo may be substantially restored'" (Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier Carreras v. Lacher, 299 A.D.2d 64, 71, quoting Rudman v. Cowles Communications, 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13). Here, plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law — a breach of contract action for damages. Thus, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be meritless.

Crew III, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Marshall v. Alaliewie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 17, 2003
304 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Marshall v. Alaliewie

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA MARSHALL, Formerly Known as BARBARA HOULE, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Apr 17, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Slezak v. Stewart's Shops Corp.

These allegations of failure to pay pursuant to the terms of a valid contract—or valid contracts—are…

Sleepy's, Inc. v. Orzechowski

Far from being free from doubt ( see Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp. 308 A.D.2d 526; USA Nutritionals v.…