Bank of New York v. McLean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. McLean

116 A.D.2d 546, 497 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51397

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 546 (Bank of New York v. McLean) 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. McLean, 116 A.D.2d 546, 497 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, [547]*547to recover on the individual defendants’ guarantee of a promissory note, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint sought to recover $310,211.28 upon a written promissory obligation dated October 25, 1982, and upon written guarantees of the same. However, plaintiff thereafter moved for judgment upon 11 separate demand notes, a letter of credit and an accommodation check. Therefore, the inconsistencies which appear on the face of plaintiff’s own papers prohibit the granting of summary judgment, despite the inadequacy of the opposing papers (see, e.g., Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, [547]*547to recover on the individual defendants’ guarantee of a promissory note, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint sought to recover $310,211.28 upon a written promissory obligation dated October 25, 1982, and upon written guarantees of the same. However, plaintiff thereafter moved for judgment upon 11 separate demand notes, a letter of credit and an accommodation check. Therefore, the inconsistencies which appear on the face of plaintiff’s own papers prohibit the granting of summary judgment, despite the inadequacy of the opposing papers (see, e.g., Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 546, 497 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-mclean-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack