Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.

250 A.D.2d 648, 672 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5555

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 648 (Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C.) 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

Kowalski Enterprises, Inc. v. Sem International L. L. C., 250 A.D.2d 648, 672 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered April 28, 1997, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action for nonpayment of the promissory note and guarantee.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted, and the matter is remitted for a determination of the amount due and owing under the promissory note and guarantee.

Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs proved their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, in support of their motion, proof of the promissory note and guarantee and of the defendants’ failure to make the payments provided by the terms of the note and guarantee (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 225 AD2d 595, 596; Governor & Co. v Dromoland Castle, 212 AD2d 759; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 AD2d 791, affd 67 NY2d 627). Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendants to come forward with proof in admissible form of the existence of triable issues of fact (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., supra; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, supra). However, the defendants’ unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations failed to raise triable issues of fact, and, therefore, the court [649]*649should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., supra; Elmsford-Interstate Bldg. Material Corp. v Elm Ridge Mgt., 243 AD2d 675; Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assocs., 238 AD2d 539; Grammas Assocs., Architectural & Eng’g Servs. v Erhlich, 229 AD2d 517). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note and a guarantee, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered April 28, 1997, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action for nonpayment of the promissory note and guarantee.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted, and the matter is remitted for a determination of the amount due and owing under the promissory note and guarantee.

Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs proved their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, in support of their motion, proof of the promissory note and guarantee and of the defendants’ failure to make the payments provided by the terms of the note and guarantee (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 225 AD2d 595, 596; Governor & Co. v Dromoland Castle, 212 AD2d 759; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 AD2d 791, affd 67 NY2d 627). Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendants to come forward with proof in admissible form of the existence of triable issues of fact (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., supra; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, supra). However, the defendants’ unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations failed to raise triable issues of fact, and, therefore, the court [649]*649should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., supra; Elmsford-Interstate Bldg. Material Corp. v Elm Ridge Mgt., 243 AD2d 675; Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assocs., 238 AD2d 539; Grammas Assocs., Architectural & Eng’g Servs. v Erhlich, 229 AD2d 517). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 648, 672 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-enterprises-inc-v-sem-international-l-l-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack