Dutchess Bank & Trust Co. v. Holden Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dutchess Bank & Trust Co. v. Holden Construction Co.

49 A.D.2d 901, 373 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 901 (Dutchess Bank & Trust Co. v. Holden Construction 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

Dutchess Bank & Trust Co. v. Holden Construction Co., 49 A.D.2d 901, 373 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon a promissory note, defendant Schwartz appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered January 22, 1975, pursuant to an order of the same court dated January 17, 1975, which granted plaintiff partial summary judgment. Judgment affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Appellant, by voluntarily appearing, filing an answer and serving papers opposing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, without asserting a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction over his person, waived any objection he had on that ground (CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Matter of Rizika v Board of Assessors of Vil. of Herkimer, 62 Misc 2d 774). In our opinion, no question of fact exists sufficient to defeat partial summary judgment on appellant’s guarantee for those proceeds of the note in question which were paid directly into a bank account of the corporate maker of the note. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a promissory note, defendant Schwartz appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered January 22, 1975, pursuant to an order of the same court dated January 17, 1975, which granted plaintiff partial summary judgment. Judgment affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Appellant, by voluntarily appearing, filing an answer and serving papers opposing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, without asserting a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction over his person, waived any objection he had on that ground (CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Matter of Rizika v Board of Assessors of Vil. of Herkimer, 62 Misc 2d 774). In our opinion, no question of fact exists sufficient to defeat partial summary judgment on appellant’s guarantee for those proceeds of the note in question which were paid directly into a bank account of the corporate maker of the note. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 901, 373 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutchess-bank-trust-co-v-holden-construction-co-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack