LaBoeuf v. Saide

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaBoeuf v. Saide

134 A.D.3d 515, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket651878/13 16410 16409

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 515 (LaBoeuf v. Saide) 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

LaBoeuf v. Saide, 134 A.D.3d 515, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*516 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.) entered April 16, 2014, awarding plaintiffs the aggregate amount of $997,279.24, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2014, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs loaned defendant $800,000 in August 2009, and the loan was memorialized by a promissory note. It is undisputed that defendant never paid on the note, and so, as permitted under CPLR 3213, plaintiffs commenced this action with a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Supreme Court properly granted the motion, as there is no basis to conclude that the promissory note was anything other than an instrument for the payment of money only (see Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v O’Neill, 11 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2004]). The existence of security for the loan does not alter the essential character of the note (see Solanki v Pandya, 269 AD2d 189 [1st Dept 2000]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

*516 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.) entered April 16, 2014, awarding plaintiffs the aggregate amount of $997,279.24, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2014, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs loaned defendant $800,000 in August 2009, and the loan was memorialized by a promissory note. It is undisputed that defendant never paid on the note, and so, as permitted under CPLR 3213, plaintiffs commenced this action with a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Supreme Court properly granted the motion, as there is no basis to conclude that the promissory note was anything other than an instrument for the payment of money only (see Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v O’Neill, 11 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2004]). The existence of security for the loan does not alter the essential character of the note (see Solanki v Pandya, 269 AD2d 189 [1st Dept 2000]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 515, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laboeuf-v-saide-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack