Cardella v. Giancola
Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish that they made a valid tender in August 1994 of the full amount due plus interest to the time of the tender (see National Sav. Bank v Hartmann, 179 AD2d 76). Furthermore, to stop the running of interest, a tender of payment must be unconditional (see Matter of Jeffrey Towers v Strauss, 31 AD2d 319, 325, affd 26 NY2d 812). Although the defendants did not dispute that they owed $147,000 of the principal amount, they sought to impose a condition that the plaintiffs place the remaining $8,000 of the principal in escrow pending resolution of a dispute over real estate transfer taxes. As the defendants did not unconditionally tender the full amount due on the note, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on $147,000 of the principal.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in its determination that the defendants’ claim for real estate transfer taxes presented a valid setoff to the amount due on the mortgage note. The note did not require such payment by the plaintiffs as a condition precedent to the defendants’ repayment obligation, and the counterclaim is not inextricably intertwined with, or inseparable from, the defendants’ obligation on the note (see Neuhaus v McGovern, supra; Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v Mendes Jr. Intl. Co., 249 AD2d 137). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiffs and
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.