Jason J. Weindorf, CPA, P.C. v. Wightman

133 A.D.3d 822, 19 N.Y.S.3d 431
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 25, 2015
Docket2014-11869
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 822 (Jason J. Weindorf, CPA, P.C. v. Wightman) 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
Jason J. Weindorf, CPA, P.C. v. Wightman, 133 A.D.3d 822, 19 N.Y.S.3d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.), dated October 30, 2014, as denied its motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover on a promissory note by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213. The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the defendant executed a promissory note, which contained an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain by May 31, 2014, and failed to pay in accordance with the terms of the note (see Luiso v Poehlsen, 125 AD3d 726 [2015]; Sun Convenient, Inc. v Sarasamir Corp., 123 AD3d 906, 907 [2014]; Von Fricken v Schaefer, 118 AD3d 869, 870 [2014]). “[T]he general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are intertwined and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact” (Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC, 122 AD3d 789, 790 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chervinsky v Rezhets, 132 AD3d 713 [2015]). Here, in opposition to the motion, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff breached an asset purchase agreement that was intertwined with the promissory note (see Oseff v Scotti, 130 AD3d 797, 800-801 [2015]; Lorber v Morovati, 83 AD3d 799, 800 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Scarpelli v. Naderi
173 N.Y.S.3d 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Express Valentine Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v. New York Taxi 2, Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 3644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co. v. Prado
2019 NY Slip Op 7766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Loewenberg v. Basnight
2019 NY Slip Op 4157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Ahmad v. Luce
2017 NY Slip Op 1170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 A.D.3d 822, 19 N.Y.S.3d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-j-weindorf-cpa-pc-v-wightman-nyappdiv-2015.