Ahmad v. Luce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmad v. Luce

2017 NY Slip Op 1170, 147 A.D.3d 888, 46 N.Y.S.3d 805

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 2017

Docket2014-11464

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1170 (Ahmad v. Luce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmad v. Luce, 2017 NY Slip Op 1170, 147 A.D.3d 888, 46 N.Y.S.3d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 29, 2014, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted.

In this action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, and proof of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms (see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 383 [2004]; Jason J. Weindorf CPA, P.C. v Wightman, 133 AD3d 822, 822 [2015]; Luiso v Poehlsen, 125 AD3d 726 [2015]; Sun Convenient, Inc. v Sarasamir Corp., 123 AD3d 906, 907 [2014]).

In opposition, the defendant Scott Hunzinger failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense (see Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 AD3d 789, 789 [2014]; New York Community Bank v Fessler, 88 AD3d 667 [2011]; Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc., 57 AD3d 708, 710 [2008]). Hunzinger failed to demonstrate that a certain membership interest purchase agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with the promissory note (Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 AD3d at 790 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 29, 2014, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted.

In this action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the promissory note, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, and proof of the defendants’ failure to make payments on the note according to its terms (see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 383 [2004]; Jason J. Weindorf CPA, P.C. v Wightman, 133 AD3d 822, 822 [2015]; Luiso v Poehlsen, 125 AD3d 726 [2015]; Sun Convenient, Inc. v Sarasamir Corp., 123 AD3d 906, 907 [2014]).

In opposition, the defendant Scott Hunzinger failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense (see Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 AD3d 789, 789 [2014]; New York Community Bank v Fessler, 88 AD3d 667 [2011]; Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc., 57 AD3d 708, 710 [2008]). Hunzinger failed to demonstrate that a certain membership interest purchase agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with the promissory note (Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 AD3d at 790 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1170, 147 A.D.3d 888, 46 N.Y.S.3d 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmad-v-luce-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack