Duke & Co. v. Lesczcak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duke & Co. v. Lesczcak

260 A.D.2d 344, 686 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3571

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 5, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the promissory note and the defendant’s failure to pay. The defendant did not demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, European Am. Bank v Strab Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 479, 480; Bosio v Selig, 165 AD2d 822). The defendant’s claim of payment, as well as his defense of duress, were unsubstantiated by admissible evidence. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the promissory note and the defendant’s failure to pay. The defendant did not demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, European Am. Bank v Strab Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 479, 480; Bosio v Selig, 165 AD2d 822). The defendant’s claim of payment, as well as his defense of duress, were unsubstantiated by admissible evidence. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Duke & Co. v. Lesczcak, 260 A.D.2d 344, 686 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

260 A.D.2d 344 (Duke & Co. v. Lesczcak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related