ARC Municipal Securities Corp. v. Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ARC Municipal Securities Corp. v. Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P. C.

171 A.D.2d 441, 567 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2734

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 441 (ARC Municipal Securities Corp. v. Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P. C.) 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

ARC Municipal Securities Corp. v. Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P. C., 171 A.D.2d 441, 567 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on January 22, 1990, which, inter alia, granted a motion by plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 3212 (e) for partial summary judgment on their first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates conclusively that the interpleader defendant and cross-claim plaintiff H. D. Acquisition Corp. did not submit a timely written notice in compliance with the agreement of purchase and sale to plaintiff ARC Municipal [442]*442Securities Corp. that would have prevented the defendant escrowee from turning the disputed funds over to the plaintiffs, the sellers under the agreement. The plaintiffs’ motion was appropriately based on their verified complaint, which contained specific allegations of fact (cf., Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870). Although plaintiffs did not urge the untimeliness of the notice until submission of their reply papers, any prejudicial surprise to H. D. Acquisition Corp. (the purchaser under the agreement) was avoided by submission of the surreply affidavit. No triable issue of fact was raised, nor was it demonstrated that there was a need for additional discovery justifying denial of the motion (see, Poluliah v Fidelity High Income Fund, 102 AD2d 720). Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on January 22, 1990, which, inter alia, granted a motion by plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 3212 (e) for partial summary judgment on their first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates conclusively that the interpleader defendant and cross-claim plaintiff H. D. Acquisition Corp. did not submit a timely written notice in compliance with the agreement of purchase and sale to plaintiff ARC Municipal [442]*442Securities Corp. that would have prevented the defendant escrowee from turning the disputed funds over to the plaintiffs, the sellers under the agreement. The plaintiffs’ motion was appropriately based on their verified complaint, which contained specific allegations of fact (cf., Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870). Although plaintiffs did not urge the untimeliness of the notice until submission of their reply papers, any prejudicial surprise to H. D. Acquisition Corp. (the purchaser under the agreement) was avoided by submission of the surreply affidavit. No triable issue of fact was raised, nor was it demonstrated that there was a need for additional discovery justifying denial of the motion (see, Poluliah v Fidelity High Income Fund, 102 AD2d 720). Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 441, 567 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arc-municipal-securities-corp-v-kleinberg-kaplan-wolff-cohen-p-c-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack