CN Funding, LLC v. Ensig Group, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CN Funding, LLC v. Ensig Group, Ltd.

52 A.D.3d 273, 860 N.Y.S.2d 34

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

DecidedJune 10, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 273 (CN Funding, LLC v. Ensig Group, Ltd.) 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

CN Funding, LLC v. Ensig Group, Ltd., 52 A.D.3d 273, 860 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 14, 2007, which, in an action to recover sums due under an equipment lease, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and, upon a search of the record, awarded defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While the subject equipment lease did not qualify as a finance lease, the parties expressly agreed to treat it as such (see UCC 2-A-103 [1] [g], Comment). Further, because the lease required defendant Ensig Group, Ltd., as lessee, to pay the amounts due to plaintiff lessor, even if the vendor failed to deliver the equipment, the vendor’s failure to deliver the equipment did not render the lease void for lack of consideration. Indeed, plaintiffs only obligation under the lease was to advance funds to the vendor on Ensig’s behalf (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v CD Video, Inc., 22 AD3d 351 [2005]).

However, the record presents an issue of fact whether plaintiff was aware, before signing the equipment lease with Ensig, that the vendor had filed for bankruptcy, in which case Ensig may have a defense against plaintiffs claims. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 214.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 14, 2007, which, in an action to recover sums due under an equipment lease, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and, upon a search of the record, awarded defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While the subject equipment lease did not qualify as a finance lease, the parties expressly agreed to treat it as such (see UCC 2-A-103 [1] [g], Comment). Further, because the lease required defendant Ensig Group, Ltd., as lessee, to pay the amounts due to plaintiff lessor, even if the vendor failed to deliver the equipment, the vendor’s failure to deliver the equipment did not render the lease void for lack of consideration. Indeed, plaintiffs only obligation under the lease was to advance funds to the vendor on Ensig’s behalf (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v CD Video, Inc., 22 AD3d 351 [2005]).

However, the record presents an issue of fact whether plaintiff was aware, before signing the equipment lease with Ensig, that the vendor had filed for bankruptcy, in which case Ensig may have a defense against plaintiffs claims. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 214.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 273, 860 N.Y.S.2d 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cn-funding-llc-v-ensig-group-ltd-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack