European American Bank & Trust Co. v. Leonard Masonry, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

European American Bank & Trust Co. v. Leonard Masonry, Inc.

107 A.D.2d 657, 484 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49788

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.2d 657 (European American Bank & Trust Co. v. Leonard Masonry, 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

European American Bank & Trust Co. v. Leonard Masonry, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 657, 484 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover on a demand promissory note, defendant Irma Burstyn appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 17, 1984, as, upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff $20,004.22 as against her. (We treat the notice of appeal dated July 1, 1983 as a notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[658]*658A review of the appellant’s papers submitted in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment clearly indicates that there was a complete absence of any proof of evidentiary facts to raise genuine triable issues regarding possible violations of relevant Federal statutes and regulations. In view thereof, summary judgment was properly granted (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover on a demand promissory note, defendant Irma Burstyn appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 17, 1984, as, upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff $20,004.22 as against her. (We treat the notice of appeal dated July 1, 1983 as a notice of appeal from the judgment.)

Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[658]*658A review of the appellant’s papers submitted in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment clearly indicates that there was a complete absence of any proof of evidentiary facts to raise genuine triable issues regarding possible violations of relevant Federal statutes and regulations. In view thereof, summary judgment was properly granted (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338; Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 657, 484 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/european-american-bank-trust-co-v-leonard-masonry-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack