Furman v. A.B.E. Industrial Associates
This text of 182 A.D.2d 493 (Furman v. A.B.E. Industrial Associates) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered October 11, 1991, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"A letter may be considered an instrument for the payment of money only, pursuant to CPLR 3213, so long as the writing unconditionally acknowledges a debt (Maglich v Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, 97 AD2d 19).” (Blum, Gersen & Stream v 346 E. 72nd St. Assocs., 172 AD2d 444.) Nevertheless, we affirm, since defendants’ opposition raises issues of fact as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the note and the letter. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
182 A.D.2d 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-v-abe-industrial-associates-nyappdiv-1992.