Hunter v. McDowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunter v. McDowell

254 A.D.2d 460, 679 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11274

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 460 (Hunter v. McDowell) 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

Hunter v. McDowell, 254 A.D.2d 460, 679 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 2, 1997, as, upon granting her cross motion, in effect, for renewal, adhered to a prior order dated June 27, 1997, granting the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment to recover on the promissory note. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing by proving the [461]*461existence of the note, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendant’s default. In opposition, the defendant failed to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact or a meritorious defense. Thus, summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted (see, Interman Indus. Prods, v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151; Grammas Assocs., Architectural & Eng’g Servs. v Ehrlich, 229 AD2d 517; Key Bank v Lisi, 225 AD2d 669; East N. Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 2, 1997, as, upon granting her cross motion, in effect, for renewal, adhered to a prior order dated June 27, 1997, granting the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment to recover on the promissory note. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing by proving the [461]*461existence of the note, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendant’s default. In opposition, the defendant failed to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact or a meritorious defense. Thus, summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted (see, Interman Indus. Prods, v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151; Grammas Assocs., Architectural & Eng’g Servs. v Ehrlich, 229 AD2d 517; Key Bank v Lisi, 225 AD2d 669; East N. Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 AD2d 601). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 460, 679 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-mcdowell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack