Cicconi v. McGinn, Smith & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cicconi v. McGinn, Smith & Co.

35 A.D.3d 292, 825 N.Y.S.2d 360

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 292 (Cicconi v. McGinn, Smith & Co.) 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

Cicconi v. McGinn, Smith & Co., 35 A.D.3d 292, 825 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 1, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his second cause of action to enforce a promissory note, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie case for a right to payment by proof of the note and the debtor’s failure to make the payments called for therein (Boland v Indah Kiat Fin. [IV] Mauritius, 291 AD2d 342 [2002]). Defendant McGinn, Smith failed to rebut sufficiently plaintiff’s statement of material facts. McGinn, Smith’s counterclaims were not sufficiently interwoven with the note to be considered a setoff against plaintiffs claim (see Reed v Shoratlantic Dev. Co., 121 AD2d 525 [1986]).

We have considered McGinn, Smith’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 1, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his second cause of action to enforce a promissory note, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie case for a right to payment by proof of the note and the debtor’s failure to make the payments called for therein (Boland v Indah Kiat Fin. [IV] Mauritius, 291 AD2d 342 [2002]). Defendant McGinn, Smith failed to rebut sufficiently plaintiff’s statement of material facts. McGinn, Smith’s counterclaims were not sufficiently interwoven with the note to be considered a setoff against plaintiffs claim (see Reed v Shoratlantic Dev. Co., 121 AD2d 525 [1986]).

We have considered McGinn, Smith’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 292, 825 N.Y.S.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicconi-v-mcginn-smith-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack