Citibank, N.A. v. Pullman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N.A. v. Pullman

190 A.D.2d 839, 594 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1628

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 839 (Citibank, N.A. v. Pullman) 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

Citibank, N.A. v. Pullman, 190 A.D.2d 839, 594 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), entered June 18, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the principal amount of the note.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Citibank, N.A. established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the existence of the promissory note and the nonpayment of the note (see, Bosio v Selig, 165 AD2d 822). It was then incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). This the defendant failed to do. The defendant’s claim that, before he executed the note, Citibank, N.A. orally agreed not to call in the loan for a certain period of time, contradicts the express terms of the note, which state that the defendant shall make payment on "demand”, and cannot serve to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Broten v Bankers Trust Co., 60 NY2d 155, 162). The defendant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory claim that Citibank, N.A. caused the default is similarly insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Bosio v Selig, supra).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), entered June 18, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the principal amount of the note.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Citibank, N.A. established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the existence of the promissory note and the nonpayment of the note (see, Bosio v Selig, 165 AD2d 822). It was then incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). This the defendant failed to do. The defendant’s claim that, before he executed the note, Citibank, N.A. orally agreed not to call in the loan for a certain period of time, contradicts the express terms of the note, which state that the defendant shall make payment on "demand”, and cannot serve to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Broten v Bankers Trust Co., 60 NY2d 155, 162). The defendant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory claim that Citibank, N.A. caused the default is similarly insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Bosio v Selig, supra).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 839, 594 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-na-v-pullman-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack