Bank v. Certified Elevator Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank v. Certified Elevator Products Corp.

222 A.D.2d 543, 636 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12970

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 543 (Bank v. Certified Elevator Products Corp.) 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 v. Certified Elevator Products Corp., 222 A.D.2d 543, 636 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages pursuant to a promissory note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 16, 1994, which, upon an order of the same court, dated June 13, 1994, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $436,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment since the defendants failed to present any genuine factual issues which would preclude summary relief (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages pursuant to a promissory note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 16, 1994, which, upon an order of the same court, dated June 13, 1994, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $436,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment since the defendants failed to present any genuine factual issues which would preclude summary relief (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 543, 636 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-v-certified-elevator-products-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack