European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3442

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

DecidedApril 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 505 (European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.) 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 v. Strab Construction Corp., 192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action brought by motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover on five promissory notes, the plaintiff bank appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered December 26, 1990, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in the principal sum of $1,205,000, and for a hearing on the issue of attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff established a prima facie case by proof of the promissory notes and guarantees, as well as the defendants’ failure to make payments in accordance with the terms of those instruments (see, Coniglio v Regan, 186 AD2d 708). The defendants were thus required to come forward with evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Banner Indus. v Key B.H. Assocs., 170 AD2d 246), which they failed to do. The defense theory relies upon an alleged oral agreement, the enforcement of which is barred by the Statute of Frauds [506]*506(see, Marine Midland Bank v Thurlow, 53 NY2d 381; Woodhouse, Drake & Carey [Trading] v Royal Intl. Trade, 188 AD2d 315). Moreover, any alleged partial performance fails to remove the oral agreement from the Statute of Frauds, since the defendants’ conduct was not "unequivocally referable” to the agreement alleged (see, American Prescription Plan v American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO Health Plan, 170 AD2d 471). Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff bank is appropriate (see, CPLR 3213). Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur. [See, —AD2d— (Aug. 2, 1993).]

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

—In an action brought by motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover on five promissory notes, the plaintiff bank appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered December 26, 1990, which denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in the principal sum of $1,205,000, and for a hearing on the issue of attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff established a prima facie case by proof of the promissory notes and guarantees, as well as the defendants’ failure to make payments in accordance with the terms of those instruments (see, Coniglio v Regan, 186 AD2d 708). The defendants were thus required to come forward with evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Banner Indus. v Key B.H. Assocs., 170 AD2d 246), which they failed to do. The defense theory relies upon an alleged oral agreement, the enforcement of which is barred by the Statute of Frauds [506]*506(see, Marine Midland Bank v Thurlow, 53 NY2d 381; Woodhouse, Drake & Carey [Trading] v Royal Intl. Trade, 188 AD2d 315). Moreover, any alleged partial performance fails to remove the oral agreement from the Statute of Frauds, since the defendants’ conduct was not "unequivocally referable” to the agreement alleged (see, American Prescription Plan v American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO Health Plan, 170 AD2d 471). Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff bank is appropriate (see, CPLR 3213). Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur. [See, —AD2d— (Aug. 2, 1993).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 505, 596 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/european-american-bank-v-strab-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack