Al Salah v. Shaaban

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Al Salah v. Shaaban

164 A.D.2d 909, 559 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 164 A.D.2d 909 (Al Salah v. Shaaban) 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

Al Salah v. Shaaban, 164 A.D.2d 909, 559 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated January 13, 1989, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the promissory notes executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s affidavit in opposition, alleging as a defense that a stock transfer had occurred in lieu of payment of the balance due on the notes, raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (cf., Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259; see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395; Esteve v Abad, 271 App Div 725). Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated January 13, 1989, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the promissory notes executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s affidavit in opposition, alleging as a defense that a stock transfer had occurred in lieu of payment of the balance due on the notes, raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (cf., Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259; see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395; Esteve v Abad, 271 App Div 725). Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D.2d 909, 559 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/al-salah-v-shaaban-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack