Kahan v. Sulaymanov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahan v. Sulaymanov

229 A.D.2d 1027, 645 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9147

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 1027 (Kahan v. Sulaymanov) 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

Kahan v. Sulaymanov, 229 A.D.2d 1027, 645 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant Vyachslav Sulaymanov. Sulaymanov presented evidence that plaintiff took the note with actual knowledge of a defense to the note, raising a triable issue whether plaintiff is a holder in due course (see, Fazio v Loweth, 112 AD2d 135, 137; UCC 3-302 [1] [c]). Even if plaintiff is a holder in due course, summary judgment was properly denied. Sulaymanov’s allegations of fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation, defenses that may be raised against a holder in due course (see, Pioneer Credit Corp. v Bon Bon Cleaners Corp., 38 AD2d 743; UCC 3-305 [2] [c]), raise a triable issue of fact.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a default judgment against defendant Jacob Moskowitz and granting his motion to serve a late answer. Moskowitz provided a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrated that he has a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; cf., Genen v McElroy, 213 AD2d 511). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Vinik, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant Vyachslav Sulaymanov. Sulaymanov presented evidence that plaintiff took the note with actual knowledge of a defense to the note, raising a triable issue whether plaintiff is a holder in due course (see, Fazio v Loweth, 112 AD2d 135, 137; UCC 3-302 [1] [c]). Even if plaintiff is a holder in due course, summary judgment was properly denied. Sulaymanov’s allegations of fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation, defenses that may be raised against a holder in due course (see, Pioneer Credit Corp. v Bon Bon Cleaners Corp., 38 AD2d 743; UCC 3-305 [2] [c]), raise a triable issue of fact.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a default judgment against defendant Jacob Moskowitz and granting his motion to serve a late answer. Moskowitz provided a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrated that he has a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; cf., Genen v McElroy, 213 AD2d 511). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Vinik, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 1027, 645 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahan-v-sulaymanov-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack