Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v. Ponjnitayapanu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v. Ponjnitayapanu

214 A.D.2d 352, 625 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4139

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1995·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 21, 1994, awarding damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by proof of defendant’s execution of the two promissory notes sued upon, and defendant’s failure to make the payments called for by their terms. Thus, it was incumbent upon defendant to set forth his version of the facts in evidentiary form, raising real defenses that could be proved at trial. Defendant’s conclusory assertions of fraud, in particular his utter failure to set forth with particularity any definite details of the transaction, were not sufficient to meet this burden (see, Banner Indus, v Key B.H. Assocs., 170 AD2d 246). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 21, 1994, awarding damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by proof of defendant’s execution of the two promissory notes sued upon, and defendant’s failure to make the payments called for by their terms. Thus, it was incumbent upon defendant to set forth his version of the facts in evidentiary form, raising real defenses that could be proved at trial. Defendant’s conclusory assertions of fraud, in particular his utter failure to set forth with particularity any definite details of the transaction, were not sufficient to meet this burden (see, Banner Indus, v Key B.H. Assocs., 170 AD2d 246). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v. Ponjnitayapanu, 214 A.D.2d 352, 625 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

214 A.D.2d 352 (Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v. Ponjnitayapanu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related