General Electric Capital Corp. v. Pacheco & Lugo, P.L.L.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Pacheco & Lugo, P.L.L.C.

300 A.D.2d 185, 750 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 185 (General Electric Capital Corp. v. Pacheco & Lugo, P.L.L.C.) 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 Electric Capital Corp. v. Pacheco & Lugo, P.L.L.C., 300 A.D.2d 185, 750 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order,

Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this breach of contract action brought by the assignee of the lessor against the lessee for the lessee’s failure to perform its payment obligations under an equipment lease, the motion court properly denied the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 1001 and 1003 for failure to join the equipment lessor as a necessary and indispensable party. Consideration of the lessor’s interests is manifestly unnecessary to the adjudication of this nonpayment action (see Joanne S. v Carey, 115 AD2d 4, 7). Any dispute regarding the condition of the equipment is properly the subject of an action against the lessor.

Nor is this action at law, commenced within the applicable limitations period, amenable to dismissal on the ground of laches (Gonzalez v Chalpin, 159 AD2d 553, 555, affd 77 NY2d 74).

Defendant’s remaining argument, that it is not in contractual privity with plaintiff assignee, is not preserved for appellate review. Were we to reach it, however, we would find it to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order,

Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this breach of contract action brought by the assignee of the lessor against the lessee for the lessee’s failure to perform its payment obligations under an equipment lease, the motion court properly denied the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 1001 and 1003 for failure to join the equipment lessor as a necessary and indispensable party. Consideration of the lessor’s interests is manifestly unnecessary to the adjudication of this nonpayment action (see Joanne S. v Carey, 115 AD2d 4, 7). Any dispute regarding the condition of the equipment is properly the subject of an action against the lessor.

Nor is this action at law, commenced within the applicable limitations period, amenable to dismissal on the ground of laches (Gonzalez v Chalpin, 159 AD2d 553, 555, affd 77 NY2d 74).

Defendant’s remaining argument, that it is not in contractual privity with plaintiff assignee, is not preserved for appellate review. Were we to reach it, however, we would find it to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 185, 750 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-electric-capital-corp-v-pacheco-lugo-pllc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack