Bank of New York v. Vega Technology USA, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Vega Technology USA, LLC

18 A.D.3d 678, 794 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedMay 23, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 678 (Bank of New York v. Vega Technology USA, LLC) 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. Vega Technology USA, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 678, 794 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[679]*679In an action to enforce a guarantee of a loan payment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 2, 2003, as amended pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation entered February 5, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendant Dina Forras.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]) by demonstrating the existence of the promissory note executed by the defendant Dina Forras, the unconditional terms of repayment, and Forras’s default thereunder (see East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601 [1995]; Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, 214 AD2d 352 [1995]; Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]). Forras failed to meet her burden of demonstrating, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 560; Ihmels v Kahn, 126 AD2d 701 [1987]; Kruger Pulp & Paper Sales v Intact Containers, 100 AD2d 894, 895 [1984]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

[679]*679In an action to enforce a guarantee of a loan payment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered December 2, 2003, as amended pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation entered February 5, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendant Dina Forras.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]) by demonstrating the existence of the promissory note executed by the defendant Dina Forras, the unconditional terms of repayment, and Forras’s default thereunder (see East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601 [1995]; Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, 214 AD2d 352 [1995]; Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]). Forras failed to meet her burden of demonstrating, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra at 560; Ihmels v Kahn, 126 AD2d 701 [1987]; Kruger Pulp & Paper Sales v Intact Containers, 100 AD2d 894, 895 [1984]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 678, 794 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-vega-technology-usa-llc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack