Cadle Co. v. Gregory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadle Co. v. Gregory

293 A.D.2d 335, 739 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628

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

DecidedApril 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 335 (Cadle Co. v. Gregory) 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

Cadle Co. v. Gregory, 293 A.D.2d 335, 739 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about June 22, 2001, which, in an action on a promissory note, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s predecessor’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s predecessor’s papers in support of the motion did not include evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to satisfy its initial burden of establishing the amount due, and thus the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of defendant’s opposing papers (see, Agway, Inc. v North Clymer Farm Serv., 291 AD2d 818, 820, citing, inter alia, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Specifically, the affidavit of its successor’s, i.e., the current plaintiff’s, employee [336]*336that was submitted in support of the motion did not identify the nature of his position or how he was familiar with the facts and circumstances stated therein, and his assertions of a default and of certain amounts due for principal, interest and late fees were made without evidentiary support and were conclusory. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about June 22, 2001, which, in an action on a promissory note, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s predecessor’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s predecessor’s papers in support of the motion did not include evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to satisfy its initial burden of establishing the amount due, and thus the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of defendant’s opposing papers (see, Agway, Inc. v North Clymer Farm Serv., 291 AD2d 818, 820, citing, inter alia, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Specifically, the affidavit of its successor’s, i.e., the current plaintiff’s, employee [336]*336that was submitted in support of the motion did not identify the nature of his position or how he was familiar with the facts and circumstances stated therein, and his assertions of a default and of certain amounts due for principal, interest and late fees were made without evidentiary support and were conclusory. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 335, 739 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadle-co-v-gregory-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack