Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Singh

135 A.D.3d 646, 24 N.Y.S.3d 268

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2016

Docket45 107314/09

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 646 (Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Singh) 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

Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Singh, 135 A.D.3d 646, 24 N.Y.S.3d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered April 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an assigned promissory note, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied. Even assuming that defendant’s signature on the note was genuine (see UCC 3-307 [1]), plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of *647 showing that it owned the note. Plaintiff claims that nonparty Wells Fargo Bank South Dakota, N.A., the original holder of the note, assigned it to nonparty Cadleway Properties, Inc. and that Cadleway Properties assigned the note to it. However, the first assignment says that Wells Fargo assigns to Cadleway Properties all of its right, title, and interest in each of the accounts identified in an account schedule which was supposed to be attached as exhibit A. However, the documents attached do not sufficiently establish the facts as alleged by plaintiff for the purpose of summary judgment.

In light of the above, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered April 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an assigned promissory note, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied. Even assuming that defendant’s signature on the note was genuine (see UCC 3-307 [1]), plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of *647 showing that it owned the note. Plaintiff claims that nonparty Wells Fargo Bank South Dakota, N.A., the original holder of the note, assigned it to nonparty Cadleway Properties, Inc. and that Cadleway Properties assigned the note to it. However, the first assignment says that Wells Fargo assigns to Cadleway Properties all of its right, title, and interest in each of the accounts identified in an account schedule which was supposed to be attached as exhibit A. However, the documents attached do not sufficiently establish the facts as alleged by plaintiff for the purpose of summary judgment.

In light of the above, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 646, 24 N.Y.S.3d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadlerock-joint-venture-ii-lp-v-singh-nyappdiv-2016.