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

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

DecidedApril 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 352 (Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v. Ponjnitayapanu) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 352, 625 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beer-sheva-realty-corp-v-ponjnitayapanu-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack