JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Business Payment Systems, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Business Payment Systems, LLC

127 A.D.3d 822, 4 N.Y.S.3d 901

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

DecidedApril 8, 2015

Docket2013-03028

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 822 (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Business Payment Systems, LLC) 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

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Business Payment Systems, LLC, 127 A.D.3d 822, 4 N.Y.S.3d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note and guaranty, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodstein, J.), entered February 5, 2013, which, upon an order of the same court entered January 23, 2013, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $90,087.47. The notice of appeal from the order entered January 23, 2013, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment entered February 5, 2013 (see CPLR 5512 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of an underlying note and guaranty executed by the defendants, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendants’ failure to make payment (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Capital Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 114 AD3d 912, 912-913 [2014]; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Galt Group, Inc., 84 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2011]; Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d 604, 604 [2005]). In this regard, we, like the Supreme Court, reject the defendants’ contention that the loan documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion were “illegible.” In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Capital *823 Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 114 AD3d at 912-913; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d at 706; Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d at 604).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and entered judgment accordingly.

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, 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 and guaranty, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodstein, J.), entered February 5, 2013, which, upon an order of the same court entered January 23, 2013, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $90,087.47. The notice of appeal from the order entered January 23, 2013, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment entered February 5, 2013 (see CPLR 5512 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of an underlying note and guaranty executed by the defendants, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendants’ failure to make payment (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Capital Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 114 AD3d 912, 912-913 [2014]; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Galt Group, Inc., 84 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2011]; Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d 604, 604 [2005]). In this regard, we, like the Supreme Court, reject the defendants’ contention that the loan documents submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion were “illegible.” In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Capital *823 Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 114 AD3d at 912-913; Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d at 706; Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d at 604).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and entered judgment accordingly.

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 822, 4 N.Y.S.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-v-business-payment-systems-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack