Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.

448 N.E.2d 1349, 58 N.Y.2d 1023, 462 N.Y.S.2d 438, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1190, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2962

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by58 cases

This text of 448 N.E.2d 1349 (Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp., 448 N.E.2d 1349, 58 N.Y.2d 1023, 462 N.Y.S.2d 438, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1190, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2962 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

[1026]*1026OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Arnold L. Fein (87 AD2d 447), to which we but add two comments.

First, that defendants had not completed discovery did not interdict the grant of summary judgment (Griffin v Cortland Mem. Hosp., 85 AD2d 837, mot for lv to app den 56 NY2d 507). In particular, defendants, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, failed to tender an affidavit or affidavits averring the existence, in admissible form, of proof which would present a triable issue of fact or, if hearsay, an acceptable excuse for the failure to present firsthand knowledge (Egleston v Kalamarides, 58 NY2d 682, 684; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Second, Special Term’s grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim despite the pendency of defendant’s counterclaim was not an abuse of discretion, without more, since it was not supported by a showing of merit (M & S Mercury Air Conditioning Corp. v Rodolitz, 24 AD2d 873, 874, affd 17 NY2d 909).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

[1026]*1026OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Arnold L. Fein (87 AD2d 447), to which we but add two comments.

First, that defendants had not completed discovery did not interdict the grant of summary judgment (Griffin v Cortland Mem. Hosp., 85 AD2d 837, mot for lv to app den 56 NY2d 507). In particular, defendants, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, failed to tender an affidavit or affidavits averring the existence, in admissible form, of proof which would present a triable issue of fact or, if hearsay, an acceptable excuse for the failure to present firsthand knowledge (Egleston v Kalamarides, 58 NY2d 682, 684; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068).

Second, Special Term’s grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim despite the pendency of defendant’s counterclaim was not an abuse of discretion, without more, since it was not supported by a showing of merit (M & S Mercury Air Conditioning Corp. v Rodolitz, 24 AD2d 873, 874, affd 17 NY2d 909).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 N.E.2d 1349, 58 N.Y.2d 1023, 462 N.Y.S.2d 438, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1190, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-pic-motors-corp-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack