Bankers Trust Co. v. Fassler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bankers Trust Co. v. Fassler

49 A.D.2d 855

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 855 (Bankers Trust Co. v. Fassler) 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

Bankers Trust Co. v. Fassler, 49 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on October 11, 1974 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Special Term properly found that in this action wherein plaintiff seeks recovery upon defendant’s written guarantee of a corporate debt and for counsel fees, defendant was required to lay bare her proof to establish that a triable issue exists. Defendant’s naked denial that she ever executed a guarantee is insufficient. She does not assert that she did not execute the document annexed to the complaint, nor did she deny the validity of her signature at Special Term. Defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses are conclusory and not factual and, therefore, insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., O’Meara Co. v National Park Bank of NY, 239 NY 386, 395.) Concur— Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on October 11, 1974 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Special Term properly found that in this action wherein plaintiff seeks recovery upon defendant’s written guarantee of a corporate debt and for counsel fees, defendant was required to lay bare her proof to establish that a triable issue exists. Defendant’s naked denial that she ever executed a guarantee is insufficient. She does not assert that she did not execute the document annexed to the complaint, nor did she deny the validity of her signature at Special Term. Defendant’s denials and affirmative defenses are conclusory and not factual and, therefore, insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., O’Meara Co. v National Park Bank of NY, 239 NY 386, 395.) Concur— Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-trust-co-v-fassler-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack