Beal Bank v. Melville Magnetic Resonance Imaging, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beal Bank v. Melville Magnetic Resonance Imaging, P. C.

270 A.D.2d 440, 704 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 440 (Beal Bank v. Melville Magnetic Resonance Imaging, P. C.) 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

Beal Bank v. Melville Magnetic Resonance Imaging, P. C., 270 A.D.2d 440, 704 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which granted the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

“[A] document comes within CPLR 3213 ‘if a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms’ ” (Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444, quoting Interman Indus. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151, 155). “The instrument [441]*441does not qualify if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document” (Weissmart v Sinorm Deli, supra, at 444). “ ‘Where the instrument requires something in addition to the defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable’ ” (Weissman v Sinorm Deli, supra, at 444). In the case at bar, since outside proof was required to determine the sum due upon the promissory note at issue in the event of default, the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was inappropriate. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which granted the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

“[A] document comes within CPLR 3213 ‘if a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms’ ” (Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444, quoting Interman Indus. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151, 155). “The instrument [441]*441does not qualify if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document” (Weissmart v Sinorm Deli, supra, at 444). “ ‘Where the instrument requires something in addition to the defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable’ ” (Weissman v Sinorm Deli, supra, at 444). In the case at bar, since outside proof was required to determine the sum due upon the promissory note at issue in the event of default, the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was inappropriate. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 440, 704 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beal-bank-v-melville-magnetic-resonance-imaging-p-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack