Opinion
June 22, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
Assuming in plaintiff's favor that the $175,000 claim it sues on was settled not through a substituted agreement but rather an accord and satisfaction, under which plaintiff executed a stipulation of discontinuance and general releases in exchange for defendants' promise to pay $100,000 immediately and $15,000 upon receipt of certain insurance proceeds, plaintiff fails to offer any evidence to support its claim that the $15,000 check defendants offered in satisfaction of the accord was not supported by sufficient funds, i.e., the insurance proceeds contemplated in the accord and satisfaction ( see, Condo v. Mulcahy, 88 A.D.2d 497). Furthermore, no reason appears why plaintiff sues for the full $175,000 it demanded in the first action when, pursuant to the accord and satisfaction, it accepted and retained a $100,000 payment; why plaintiff sued the individual defendant, who is not shown to have guaranteed payment of the goods sold to the corporate defendant; why plaintiff failed to acknowledge the corporate defendant's bankruptcy proceeding; and why plaintiff made scurrilous allegations of wrongdoing having no apparent relevance to the issue of payment. Accordingly, the sanction was warranted.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.