Houck v. May

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Houck v. May

99 A.D.2d 506, 471 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16705

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 506 (Houck v. May) 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

Houck v. May, 99 A.D.2d 506, 471 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a balance allegedly due on a series of promissory notes, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated April 15,1983, as, in part, denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Since the loan agreements between the parties unmistakably refer to the individual defendants only, we agree with Special Term that an issue of fact exists as to the true identity of the borrower (see Schneider v Phelps, 41 NY2d 238; Hoffman v Nashem Motors 20 NY2d 513; Am-Elm Realty v Stivers, 55 AD2d 349; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885). An issue of fact having been raised, Special Term correctly denied, in part, the motion for summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Titone, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a balance allegedly due on a series of promissory notes, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated April 15,1983, as, in part, denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Since the loan agreements between the parties unmistakably refer to the individual defendants only, we agree with Special Term that an issue of fact exists as to the true identity of the borrower (see Schneider v Phelps, 41 NY2d 238; Hoffman v Nashem Motors 20 NY2d 513; Am-Elm Realty v Stivers, 55 AD2d 349; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885). An issue of fact having been raised, Special Term correctly denied, in part, the motion for summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Titone, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 506, 471 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houck-v-may-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack