From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beneficial Fin. Co. of New York v. Youngman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 15, 1977
57 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

April 15, 1977

Appeal from the Ontario County Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and judgment of Canandaigua City Court reinstated. Memorandum: In this action commenced by plaintiff Beneficial Finance Company to recover the balance due on a promissory note, defendant has interposed a counterclaim seeking damages by reason of plaintiff having wrongfully filed a wage assignment with her employer. Defendant had previously obtained an order vacating the wage assignment pursuant to article 3-A of the Personal Property Law and now asserts that she is entitled to recover her counsel fees in that proceeding, as well as other damages arising from the filing of the assignment. Defendant contends that the filing of the wage assignment constituted a tortious interference with her employment contract. Neither her counterclaim nor her affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, however, provides any basis upon which to conclude that she was discharged from her employment or that the conditions of her employment were affected in any way as a result of plaintiff's filing of the wage assignment. Accordingly, in the absence of any intentional interference with defendant's employment, we conclude that her counterclaim fails to state a cause of action (see Israel v Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 120; see, also, 2 N.Y. PJI, pp 831, 832). Also lacking merit is defendant's claim that she is entitled to recover her legal fees in connection with the proceeding to vacate the wage assignment. No ground is presented here for a departure from the general rule that counsel fees may not be recovered absent specific statutory authority or contractual obligation therefor (see City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 262-263, mot for rearg den 29 N.Y.2d 649; Piaget Watch Corp. v Audemars Piguet Co., 35 A.D.2d 920). Finally, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been granted in view of defendant's failure to respond to its notice to admit (CPLR 3123, subd [a]).


Summaries of

Beneficial Fin. Co. of New York v. Youngman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 15, 1977
57 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Beneficial Fin. Co. of New York v. Youngman

Case Details

Full title:BENEFICIAL FINANCE CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., Appellant, v. ARLENE YOUNGMAN…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Marine Midland Bank v. Bryce

Moreover, the notice to admit seeks defendants' acknowledgment of the correctness of the statements attached…

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Carchi

A notice to admit is a discovery device, and may be used by a party on a motion for summary judgment, or at…