Bank of New York v. Cariello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Cariello

69 A.D.2d 805, 415 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450

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

DecidedApril 2, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 805 (Bank of New York v. Cariello) 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

Bank of New York v. Cariello, 69 A.D.2d 805, 415 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a promissory note and a written guarantee thereof, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 29, 1978, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff is awarded summary judgment against defendants in the sum of $11,512.31, with interest. The action is remanded to Special Term to hear and determine plaintiff’s fair and reasonable attorney’s fees. One who contests a motion for summary judgment must present sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of a genuine triable factual issue (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Di Sabato v Soffes, 9 AD2d 297). Defendants raised no genuine triable issue of fact as to their liability on the note and guarantee. The right to interpose a counterclaim was waived by defendants in the promissory note and guarantee and, therefore, one may not be maintained in this action. We do not rule on the sufficiency of paragraph 4 of the answer insofar as it may be alleged as the basis of a complaint in an independent action. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a promissory note and a written guarantee thereof, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 29, 1978, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff is awarded summary judgment against defendants in the sum of $11,512.31, with interest. The action is remanded to Special Term to hear and determine plaintiff’s fair and reasonable attorney’s fees. One who contests a motion for summary judgment must present sufficient proof to demonstrate the existence of a genuine triable factual issue (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Di Sabato v Soffes, 9 AD2d 297). Defendants raised no genuine triable issue of fact as to their liability on the note and guarantee. The right to interpose a counterclaim was waived by defendants in the promissory note and guarantee and, therefore, one may not be maintained in this action. We do not rule on the sufficiency of paragraph 4 of the answer insofar as it may be alleged as the basis of a complaint in an independent action. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 805, 415 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-cariello-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack