Bouras v. Corsell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bouras v. Corsell

301 A.D.2d 426, 752 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 426 (Bouras v. Corsell) 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

Bouras v. Corsell, 301 A.D.2d 426, 752 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which, in an action to recover a loan of money, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for computation of the amount of interest, if any, due on the subject loan and entry of judgment.

Defendant’s claim, in opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion that the $50,000 plaintiff admittedly gave her was a gift is belied by her deposition testimony in another action wherein she admitted that plaintiff “loaned me fifty thousand dollars to take care of tuition and other expenses,” and, in response to the question “Was it your understanding that he was giving you a gift?”, she answered, “No. Thought it was a loan.” In addition, defendant’s handwritten list of her outstanding loans listed “Nicholas Bouras $50,000,” and her own partially signed check made payable to Nicholas J. Bouras in the sum of $50,000 bears the notation “Loan Repayment.” Defendant’s self-serving and conclusory statements in opposition are insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which, in an action to recover a loan of money, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for computation of the amount of interest, if any, due on the subject loan and entry of judgment.

Defendant’s claim, in opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion that the $50,000 plaintiff admittedly gave her was a gift is belied by her deposition testimony in another action wherein she admitted that plaintiff “loaned me fifty thousand dollars to take care of tuition and other expenses,” and, in response to the question “Was it your understanding that he was giving you a gift?”, she answered, “No. Thought it was a loan.” In addition, defendant’s handwritten list of her outstanding loans listed “Nicholas Bouras $50,000,” and her own partially signed check made payable to Nicholas J. Bouras in the sum of $50,000 bears the notation “Loan Repayment.” Defendant’s self-serving and conclusory statements in opposition are insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 426, 752 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouras-v-corsell-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack