Coleman v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. Norton

289 A.D.2d 130, 734 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 130 (Coleman v. Norton) 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

Coleman v. Norton, 289 A.D.2d 130, 734 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 20, 2000, in plaintiffs’ favor, in the total amount of $142,699.58, on two promissory notes, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While summary judgment upon a promissory note should be denied where there are questions of fact as to whether the note was procured by fraud (see, GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin’s Inc., 127 AD2d 545), here, the allegations in defendant’s verified pleading were conclusory and unsubstantiated, and, indeed, substantially contradicted by plaintiffs’ documentary evidence, and, as such, insufficient to warrant denial of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning Park, 215 AD2d 246). Defendant’s claim that he had been unable to obtain facts necessary to oppose summary judgment was properly rejected by the motion court since the action had been commenced more than two years prior to the summary judgment motion and defendant, during that time, failed to proceed in a timely fashion to procure plaintiffs’ depositions. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 20, 2000, in plaintiffs’ favor, in the total amount of $142,699.58, on two promissory notes, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While summary judgment upon a promissory note should be denied where there are questions of fact as to whether the note was procured by fraud (see, GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin’s Inc., 127 AD2d 545), here, the allegations in defendant’s verified pleading were conclusory and unsubstantiated, and, indeed, substantially contradicted by plaintiffs’ documentary evidence, and, as such, insufficient to warrant denial of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning Park, 215 AD2d 246). Defendant’s claim that he had been unable to obtain facts necessary to oppose summary judgment was properly rejected by the motion court since the action had been commenced more than two years prior to the summary judgment motion and defendant, during that time, failed to proceed in a timely fashion to procure plaintiffs’ depositions. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 130, 734 N.Y.S.2d 169, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-norton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack