Demchuk v. North Fork Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demchuk v. North Fork Bank & Trust Co.

121 A.D.2d 680, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58669

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

DecidedJune 30, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 680 (Demchuk v. North Fork Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Demchuk v. North Fork Bank & Trust Co., 121 A.D.2d 680, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to vacate and set aside a confession of judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated September 19, 1984, as amended March 26, 1985, and May 22, 1985, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Order, as amended, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly determined that the confession of [681]*681judgment executed by the plaintiff was supported by consideration and was thus valid, irrespective of the alleged manner in which the underlying guarantee was procured (see, Strong v Sheffield, 144 NY 392; Kail v Department of Public Welfare, 62 Misc 2d 302). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to vacate and set aside a confession of judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated September 19, 1984, as amended March 26, 1985, and May 22, 1985, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Order, as amended, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly determined that the confession of [681]*681judgment executed by the plaintiff was supported by consideration and was thus valid, irrespective of the alleged manner in which the underlying guarantee was procured (see, Strong v Sheffield, 144 NY 392; Kail v Department of Public Welfare, 62 Misc 2d 302). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 680, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demchuk-v-north-fork-bank-trust-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack