Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Tufano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Tufano

203 A.D.2d 102, 610 N.Y.S.2d 37

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

DecidedApril 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 102 (Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Tufano) 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

Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Tufano, 203 A.D.2d 102, 610 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.) entered March 8, 1993, which awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $187,248.99, inclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant-appellant’s belated assertions that his signature on the promissory note was forged and that he was in Texas at the time the note was executed amount to mere conclusory statements, unsubstantiated in the record, which are not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.) entered March 8, 1993, which awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $187,248.99, inclusive of interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant-appellant’s belated assertions that his signature on the promissory note was forged and that he was in Texas at the time the note was executed amount to mere conclusory statements, unsubstantiated in the record, which are not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255, 259). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 102, 610 N.Y.S.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joint-venture-asset-acquisition-v-tufano-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack