Girolamo v. Hyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Girolamo v. Hyman

292 A.D.2d 319, 739 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 319 (Girolamo v. Hyman) 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

Girolamo v. Hyman, 292 A.D.2d 319, 739 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 1, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action to recover upon numerous promissory notes was properly dismissed as time-barred. Even if, as plaintiff argues, the acceleration clause applicable to the notes was not self-executing, but required action by plaintiff to become operative, plaintiffs affidavit in support of an earlier motion establishes that he took action to accelerate the notes, and thus triggered the running of the statutory period, more than six years prior to this action’s commencement.

In any event, the notes, which are blank as to the payee, are not enforceable as written (see, UCC 3-115 [1]; Hilborn v Pennsylvania Cement Co., 145 App Div 442, 446). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 1, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action to recover upon numerous promissory notes was properly dismissed as time-barred. Even if, as plaintiff argues, the acceleration clause applicable to the notes was not self-executing, but required action by plaintiff to become operative, plaintiffs affidavit in support of an earlier motion establishes that he took action to accelerate the notes, and thus triggered the running of the statutory period, more than six years prior to this action’s commencement.

In any event, the notes, which are blank as to the payee, are not enforceable as written (see, UCC 3-115 [1]; Hilborn v Pennsylvania Cement Co., 145 App Div 442, 446). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 319, 739 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girolamo-v-hyman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack