Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Homesell, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Homesell, Inc.

136 A.D.3d 853, 24 N.Y.S.3d 913

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2016

Docket2014-09439

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 853 (Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Homesell, Inc.) 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, L.P. v. Homesell, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 853, 24 N.Y.S.3d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*854 In an action to recover on a promissory note and personal guaranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated April 11, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence of the existence of an underlying promissory note and personal guaranty, and the defendants’ failure to make payment in accordance with the terms of those instruments (see Nunez v Channel Grocery & Deli Corp., 124 AD3d 734, 735 [2015]; Rachmany v Regev, 115 AD3d 840, 841 [2014]; TD Bank, N.A. v Clinton Ct. Dev., LLC, 105 AD3d 1032, 1035 [2013]). Further, to the extent that the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action can be deemed to have been put in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to establish its standing as the holder of the note with an allonge endorsed in blank (see Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d 787, 788 [2015]; Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904, 905 [2015]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to either the plaintiff’s standing or a bona fide defense to nonpayment (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Business Payment Sys., LLC, 127 AD3d 822 [2015]; Nunez v Channel Grocery & Deli Corp., 124 AD3d at 735; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 707 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

*854 In an action to recover on a promissory note and personal guaranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated April 11, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence of the existence of an underlying promissory note and personal guaranty, and the defendants’ failure to make payment in accordance with the terms of those instruments (see Nunez v Channel Grocery & Deli Corp., 124 AD3d 734, 735 [2015]; Rachmany v Regev, 115 AD3d 840, 841 [2014]; TD Bank, N.A. v Clinton Ct. Dev., LLC, 105 AD3d 1032, 1035 [2013]). Further, to the extent that the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action can be deemed to have been put in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to establish its standing as the holder of the note with an allonge endorsed in blank (see Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d 787, 788 [2015]; Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904, 905 [2015]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to either the plaintiff’s standing or a bona fide defense to nonpayment (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Business Payment Sys., LLC, 127 AD3d 822 [2015]; Nunez v Channel Grocery & Deli Corp., 124 AD3d at 735; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 707 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 853, 24 N.Y.S.3d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadlerock-joint-venture-lp-v-homesell-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack