Cor Route 5 Co. v. Saracens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cor Route 5 Co. v. Saracens

59 A.D.3d 1006, 872 N.Y.S.2d 358

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 1006 (Cor Route 5 Co. v. Saracens) 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

Cor Route 5 Co. v. Saracens, 59 A.D.3d 1006, 872 N.Y.S.2d 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James E Murphy, J.), entered October 24, 2007. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 seeking to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by defendant. Although plaintiff met its initial burden by submitting the note and evidence of defendant’s default (see LaMar v Vasile [appeal No. 4], 49 AD3d 1218 [2008]; Di Marco v Bombard Car Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 960 [2004]), defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to his defense of contract modification (see generally Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338, 343 [1977]; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Sawdey, 286 AD2d 972, 973 [2001]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James E Murphy, J.), entered October 24, 2007. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 seeking to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by defendant. Although plaintiff met its initial burden by submitting the note and evidence of defendant’s default (see LaMar v Vasile [appeal No. 4], 49 AD3d 1218 [2008]; Di Marco v Bombard Car Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 960 [2004]), defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to his defense of contract modification (see generally Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338, 343 [1977]; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Sawdey, 286 AD2d 972, 973 [2001]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 1006, 872 N.Y.S.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cor-route-5-co-v-saracens-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack