Costantini v. Bimco Industries, Inc.

125 A.D.2d 531, 510 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62830
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 531 (Costantini v. Bimco Industries, Inc.) 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
Costantini v. Bimco Industries, Inc., 125 A.D.2d 531, 510 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In an action to recover the amount due and owing of loans made by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated May 21, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal amount of $8,930.65, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 23, 1985, which denied its motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff met his burden of proving that he had made several loans to the defendant corporation which had been only partially repaid. In addition, the plaintiff met his burden of proof in establishing, by notations on checks payable to him, and through his own testimony, that partial payments made to him by the defendant, representing interest and principal, were sufficient to remove the case from the operation of the Statute of Limitations (see, General Obligations Law § 17-101; Mills v Davis, 113 NY 243, 247; Bernstein v Kaplan, 67 AD2d 897, 898; cf. Matter of Hall, 144 Misc 616, 618-619). Further, the plaintiff’s claim was not unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, since, by their terms, the loan agreements between the parties were open-ended, with no set time for repayment (see, High v Pritzker, 58 NYS2d 706, affd 269 App Div 1015). Finally, the trial court properly dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim for failure of proof. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Grover
2018 NY Slip Op 7219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Licata v. Cuzzi
2018 NY Slip Op 3348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Sarva v. Chakravorty
34 A.D.3d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Education Resources Institute, Inc. v. Piazza
17 A.D.3d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Moon v. Moon
6 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
A-1 Asphalt Corp. v. On-Site Construction & Development Corp.
250 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 531, 510 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costantini-v-bimco-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1986.