General Elec. Capital Bus. Asset Funding Corp. of Conn. v. Kazi Family LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

General Elec. Capital Bus. Asset Funding Corp. of Conn. v. Kazi Family LLC

126 A.D.3d 524, 2 N.Y.S.3d 893

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2015

Docket14239 600785/10

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 524 (General Elec. Capital Bus. Asset Funding Corp. of Conn. v. Kazi Family LLC) 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

General Elec. Capital Bus. Asset Funding Corp. of Conn. v. Kazi Family LLC, 126 A.D.3d 524, 2 N.Y.S.3d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered October 11, 2013, which denied defendant Zubair Kazi’s (defendant) motion for, among other things, an evidentiary hearing to determine whether payments made by and/or on behalf of defendant and/or certain debtors were applied by plaintiffs to satisfy a judgment against defendant and to determine the amount of any overpayment of the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion to the extent he sought a hearing regarding his alleged overpayment of a judgment against him. Defendant has not provided competent evidence to support his conclusory allegation that he overpaid the judgment (see Susi Contr. Co. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 172 AD2d 255, 256 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed and lv denied 78 NY2d 984 [1991]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered October 11, 2013, which denied defendant Zubair Kazi’s (defendant) motion for, among other things, an evidentiary hearing to determine whether payments made by and/or on behalf of defendant and/or certain debtors were applied by plaintiffs to satisfy a judgment against defendant and to determine the amount of any overpayment of the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion to the extent he sought a hearing regarding his alleged overpayment of a judgment against him. Defendant has not provided competent evidence to support his conclusory allegation that he overpaid the judgment (see Susi Contr. Co. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 172 AD2d 255, 256 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed and lv denied 78 NY2d 984 [1991]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 524, 2 N.Y.S.3d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-elec-capital-bus-asset-funding-corp-of-conn-v-kazi-family-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack